Cited by 53Evolution and Genetic DynamicsBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Effective polyploidy causes phenotypic delay and influences bacterial evolvability

Open access
Sun, Lei, Alexander, Helen K., Bogos, Balazs, Kiviet, Daniel J., Ackermann, Martin, Bonhoeffer, Sebastian·2018·PLOS Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Whether mutations in bacteria exhibit a noticeable delay before expressing their corresponding mutant phenotype was discussed intensively in the 1940s-50s, but the discussion eventually waned for lack of supportive evidence and perceived incompatibility with observed mutant distributions in fluctuation tests. Phenotypic delay in bacteria is widely assumed to be negligible, despite lack of direct evidence. Here we revisited the question using recombineering to introduce antibiotic resistance mutations into E. coli at defined time points and then tracking expression of the corresponding mutant phenotype over time. Contrary to previous assumptions, we found a substantial median phenotypic delay of 3-4 generations. We provided evidence that the primary source of this delay is multifork replication causing cells to be effectively polyploid, whereby wild-type gene copies transiently mask the phenotype of recessive mutant gene copies in the same cell. Using modeling and simulation methods, we explored the consequences of effective polyploidy for mutation rate estimation by fluctuation tests and sequencing-based methods. For recessive mutations, despite the substantial phenotypic delay, the per-copy or per-genome mutation rate is accurately estimated. However, the per-cell rate cannot be estimated by existing methods. Finally, with a mathematical model, we showed that effective polyploidy increases the frequency of costly recessive mutations in the standing genetic variation, and thus their potential contribution to evolutionary adaptation, while drastically reducing the chance that de novo recessive mutations can rescue populations facing a harsh environmental change such as antibiotic treatment. Overall, we have identified phenotypic delay and effective polyploidy as previously overlooked but essential components in bacterial evolvability, including antibiotic resistance evolution. Author summary What is the time delay between the occurrence of a genetic mutation in a bacterial cell and manifestation of its phenotypic effect? We show that antibiotic resistance mutations in E.coli show a remarkably long phenotypic delay of 3-4 bacterial generations. The primary underlying mechanism of this delay is effective polyploidy. In a polyploid cell with multiple chromosomes, once a mutation arises on one of the chromosomes, the presence of non-mutated, wild-type gene copies on other chromosomes may mask the phenotype of the mutation. One implication of this finding is that conventional methods to determine the mutation rates of bacteria do not detect polyploidy and thus underestimate their potential for adaptation. More generally, the effect that a new mutation may become useful only in the “grand-children of the grand-children” suggests that pre-existing mutations are more important for surviving sudden environmental catastrophe.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004644

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • rSalvador is the most accurate tool for mutation rate estimation.

    “Based upon simulations, rSalvador is the most accurate.”

    From Efficient, robust, and versatile fluctuation data analysis using MLE MUtation Rate calculator (mlemur) (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    In Materials and methods (Simulated fluctuation tests; page unavailable), the paper says it used its own R code and mentions rSalvador only as a package into which its methods might later be integrated. Its simulations do not compare the accuracy of mutation-rate estimation tools, so they do not establish that rSalvador is the most accurate. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Stewart's correction gives acceptable point estimates only for large values of ε.

    “As was shown by Zheng, Stewart's correction gives acceptable point estimates only for large values of ε [24].”

    From Efficient, robust, and versatile fluctuation data analysis using MLE MUtation Rate calculator (mlemur) (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Materials and methods section on simulated fluctuation tests describes maximum-likelihood mutation-rate estimates, and the Results section discusses how those estimates vary with ploidy and mutation dominance (pages unavailable). Neither addresses Stewart’s correction or whether it gives acceptable point estimates only at large ε; searches for Stewart, Zheng, and the ε condition found no such passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. [1]Luria SE, Delbrück M. Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics. 1943; 28: 491– 511. 17247100 PMC1209226
  2. [2]Ryan FJ. Phenotypic (phenomic) lag in bacteria. Am Nat. 1955; 89: 159– 162.
  3. [3]Newcombe HB. Delayed phenotypic expression of spontaneous mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetics. 1948; 33. PMC1209418 17247291
  4. [4]Kendal WS, Frost P. Pitfalls and Practice of Luria-Delbruck Fluctuation Analysis: A Review. Cancer Res. 1988; 48: 1060– 1065. 3277705
  5. [5]Sambrook J, Green MR. Molecular Cloning—A Laboratory Manual 4th Edition Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2012.
  6. [6]Sharan SK, Thomason LC, Kuznetsov SG, Court DL. Recombineering: a homologous recombination-based method of genetic engineering. Nat Protoc. 2009; 4: 206– 23. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.227 19180090 PMC2790811 · DOI
  7. [7]Trindade S, Sousa A, Xavier KB, Dionisio F, Ferreira MG, Gordo I. Positive epistasis drives the acquisition of multidrug resistance. PLoS Genet. 2009; 5: e1000578 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000578 19629166 PMC2706973 · DOI
  8. [8]Cupples CG, Miller JH. A set of lacZ mutations in Escherichia coli that allow rapid detection of each of the six base substitutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1989; 86: 5345– 5349. 2501784 PMC297618
  9. [9]Nielsen HJ, Youngren B, Hansen FG, Austin S. Dynamics of Escherichia coli chromosome segregation during multifork replication. J Bacteriol. 2007; 189: 8660– 8666. doi: 10.1128/JB.01212-07 17905986 PMC2168957 · DOI
  10. [10]Akerlund T, Nordström K, Bernander R. Analysis of cell size and DNA content in exponentially growing and stationary-phase batch cultures of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1995; 177: 6791– 6797. 7592469 PMC177544
  11. [11]Edgar R, Friedman N, Molshanski-Mor S, Qimron U. Reversing bacterial resistance to antibiotics by phage-mediated delivery of dominant sensitive genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012; 78: 744– 51. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05741-11 22113912 PMC3264097 · DOI
  12. [12]Hayward RS. DNA Blockade by Rifampicin-Inactivated Escherichia coli RNA Polymerase, and Its Amelioration by a Specific Mutation. Eur J Biochem. 1976; 71: 19– 24. 795662
  13. [13]Cirz RT, Chin JK, Andes DR, de Crécy-Lagard V, Craig W a, Romesberg FE. Inhibition of mutation and combating the evolution of antibiotic resistance. PLoS Biol. 2005; 3: e176 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030176 15869329 PMC1088971 · DOI
  14. [14]Palmer AC, Kishony R. Opposing effects of target overexpression reveal drug mechanisms. Nat Commun. 2014; 5: 4296. 24980690 PMC4408919
  15. [15]Nagel R, Chan A. Mistranslation and genetic variability. The effect of streptomycin. Mutat Res—Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 2006; 601: 162– 170. 16904706
  16. [16]Ovchinnikov YA, Monastyrskaya GS, Guriev SO, Kalinina NF, Sverdlov ED, Gragerov AI, et al RNA polymerase rifampicin resistance mutations in Escherichia coli: Sequence changes and dominance. Mol Gen Genet. 1983; 190: 344– 348. 6348476
  17. [17]Kremers G-J, Goedhart J, van Munster EB, Gadella TWJ. Cyan and yellow super fluorescent proteins with improved brightness, protein folding, and FRET Förster radius. Biochemistry. 2006; 45: 6570– 80. doi: 10.1021/bi0516273 16716067 · DOI
  18. [18]Boyle NR, Reynolds TS, Evans R, Lynch M, Gill RT. Recombineering to homogeneity: Extension of multiplex recombineering to large-scale genome editing. Biotechnol J. 2013; 8: 515– 522. doi: 10.1002/biot.201200237 23436787 · DOI
  19. [19]Adiciptaningrum AM, Blomfield IC, Tans SJ. Direct observation of type 1 fimbrial switching. EMBO Rep. 2009; 10: 527– 532. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.25 19325559 PMC2680869 · DOI
  20. [20]Calvin NM, Hanawalt PC. High-Efficiency Transformation of Bacterial cells by Electroporation. J Bacteriol. 1988; 170: 2796– 2801. 3286620 PMC211205
  21. [21]Sawitzke JA, Thomason LC, Costantino N, Bubunenko M, Datta S, Court DL. Recombineering: In Vivo Genetic Engineering in E. coli, S. enterica, and Beyond. Methods Enzymol. 2007; 421: 171– 199. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(06)21015-2 17352923 · DOI
  22. [22]Tobiason DM, Seifert HS. The Obligate Human Pathogen, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Is Polyploid. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4: e185 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040185 16719561 PMC1470461 · DOI
  23. [23]Foster PL. Methods for determining spontaneous mutation rates. Methods Enzymol. 2006; 409: 195– 213. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(05)09012-9 16793403 PMC2041832 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [24]Kondo S. A theoretical study on spontaneous mutation rate. Mutat Res. 1972; 240: 365– 374. 4552773
  25. [25]Ryan FJ, Wainwright LK. Nuclear segregation and the growth of clones of spontaneous mutants of bacteria. J Gen Microbiol. 1954; 11: 364– 379. doi: 10.1099/00221287-11-3-364 13221757 · DOI
  26. [26]Lederberg J. Aberrant heterozygotes in Escherchia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1949; 35: 178– 184. 16588878 PMC1062993
  27. [27]Kissling GE, Grogan DW, Drake JW. Confounders of mutation-rate estimators: Selection and phenotypic lag in Thermus thermophilus. Mutat Res—Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen. 2013; 749: 16– 20. PMC4459638 23916418
  28. [28]Markov AV, Kaznacheev IS. Evolutionary consequences of polyploidy in prokaryotes and the origin of mitosis and meiosis. Biol Direct. 2016; 11: 1– 22. 27277956 PMC4898445
  29. [29]Zheng Q. Statistical and algorithmic methods for fluctuation analysis with SALVADOR as an implementation. Math Biosci. 2002; 176: 237– 252. 11916511
  30. [30]Zheng Q. Progress of a half century in the study of the Luria-Delbrück distribution. Math Biosci. 1999; 162: 1– 32. 10616278
  31. [31]Lee H, Popodi E, Tang H, Foster PL. Rate and molecular spectrum of spontaneous mutations in the bacterium Escherichia coli as determined by whole-genome sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012; 109: E2774– E2783. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210309109 22991466 PMC3478608 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [32]Otto SP, Whitton J. Polyploid incidence and evolution. Annu Rev Genet. 2000; 34: 401– 437. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.401 11092833 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [33]Orr HA, Otto SP. Does diploidy increase the rate of adaptation? Genetics. 1994; 136: 1475– 1480. 8013920 PMC1205926
  34. [34]Ribeiro RM, Bonhoeffer S. Production of resistant HIV mutants during antiretroviral therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2000; 97: 7681– 7686. 10884399 PMC16603
  35. [35]Barrett RDH, Schluter D. Adaptation from standing genetic variation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008; 23: 38– 44. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.008 18006185 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [36]Alexander HK, Martin G, Martin OY, Bonhoeffer S. Evolutionary rescue: Linking theory for conservation and medicine. Evol Appl. 2014; 7: 1161– 1179. doi: 10.1111/eva.12221 25558278 PMC4275089 · DOI
  37. [37]Bos J, Zhang Q, Vyawahare S, Rogers E, Rosenberg SM, Austin RH. Emergence of antibiotic resistance from multinucleated bacterial filaments. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; 112: 178– 83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1420702111 25492931 PMC4291622 · DOI
  38. [38]Soppa J. Polyploidy and community structure. Nat Microbiol. 2017; 2: 16261 doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.261 28120929 · DOI
  39. [39]Angert ER. DNA Replication and Genomic Architecture of Very Large Bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2012; 66: 197– 212. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-090110-102827 22994492 · DOI
  40. [40]Trun NJ, Gottesman S. On the bacterial cell cycle: Escherichia coli mutants with altered ploidy. Genes Dev. 1990; 4: 2036– 2047. 2176633
  41. [41]Krašovec R, Richards H, Gifford DR, Hatcher C, Faulkner KJ, Belavkin RV, et al Spontaneous mutation rate is a plastic trait associated with population density across domains of life. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15: e2002731 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002731 28837573 PMC5570273 · DOI
  42. [42]Wielgoss S, Barrick JE, Tenaillon O, Cruveiller S, Chane-Woon-Ming B, Médigue C, et al Mutation Rate Inferred From Synonymous Substitutions in a Long-Term Evolution Experiment With Escherichia coli. G3. 2011; 1: 183– 186. doi: 10.1534/g3.111.000406 22207905 PMC3246271 · DOI
  43. [43]Anderson JB, Sirjusingh C, Ricker N. Haploidy, diploidy and evolution of antifungal drug resistance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics. 2004; 168: 1915– 1923. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.033266 15371350 PMC1448728 · DOI · Paper page
  44. [44]Santos-Lopez A, Bernabe-Balas C, Ares-Arroyo M, Ortega-Huedo R, Hoefer A, Millan AS, et al A Naturally Occurring Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in a Multicopy Plasmid Produces a Reversible Increase in Antibiotic Resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017; 61: e01735– 16. PMC5278757 27895020
  45. [45]Jones TR, Kang IH, Wheeler DB, Lindquist RA, Papallo A, Sabatini DM, et al CellProfiler Analyst: data exploration and analysis software for complex image-based screens. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008; 9: 482 doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-482 19014601 PMC2614436 · DOI
  46. [46]Sawitzke JA, Costantino N, Li X-T, Thomason LC, Bubunenko M, Court C, et al Probing cellular processes with oligo-mediated recombination and using the knowledge gained to optimize recombineering. J Mol Biol. Elsevier B.V.; 2011; 407: 45– 59. PMC3046259 21256136
  47. [47]Mazoyer A, Drouilhet R, Despréaux S, Ycart B. flan: An R Package for Inference on Mutation Models. R J. 2017; 9: 334– 351.
  48. [51]Sun L, Alexander HK, Bogos B, Kiviet DJ, Ackermann M, Bonhoeffer S. Data from: Effective polyploidy causes phenotypic delay and influences bacterial evolvability. In: Dryad Digital Repository [Internet]. 2018. [Cited on 15 February 2018]. http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8723t. PMC5839593 29470493 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, L., Alexander, H. K., Bogos, B., Kiviet, D. J., Ackermann, M., & Bonhoeffer, S.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Bonhoeffer, Sebastian
Venue
PLOS Biology
Published
2018-02-22
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
e2004644
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W2952558578
Cited by
53
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • European Commission (268540)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (155866, 268540, 149267)
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
  • Uppsala Universitet
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (268540)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
antibiotic resistance evolution, recessive mutations, standing genetic variation, mutation rate estimation, fluctuation test, Escherichia coli, recombineering, adaptation to environmental change
MeSH terms
Chromosomes, Bacterial, DNA Replication, DNA, Bacterial, Escherichia coli, Genes, Bacterial, Genes, Recessive, Mutation, Polyploidy, Genetic Variation, Mutagenesis, Gene Dosage, Replication Origin, Evolution, Molecular, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review