All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

PLOS ONE  2007 

Maladaptation and the Paradox of Robustness in Evolution

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001021

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Background Organisms use a variety of mechanisms to protect themselves against perturbations. For example, repair mechanisms fix damage, feedback loops keep homeostatic systems at their setpoints, and biochemical filters distinguish signal from noise. Such buffering mechanisms are often discussed in terms of robustness, which may be measured by reduced sensitivity of performance to perturbations. Methodology/Principal Findings I use a mathematical model to analyze the evolutionary dynamics of robustness in order to understand aspects of organismal design by natural selection. I focus on two characters: one character performs an adaptive task; the other character buffers the performance of the first character against perturbations. Increased perturbations favor enhanced buffering and robustness, which in turn decreases sensitivity and reduces the intensity of natural selection on the adaptive character. Reduced selective pressure on the adaptive character often leads to a less costly, lower performance trait. Conclusions/Significance The paradox of robustness arises from evolutionary dynamics: enhanced robustness causes an evolutionary reduction in the adaptive performance of the target character, leading to a degree of maladaptation compared to what could be achieved by natural selection in the absence of robustness mechanisms. Over evolutionary time, buffering traits may become layered on top of each other, while the underlying adaptive traits become replaced by cheaper, lower performance components. The paradox of robustness has widespread implications for understanding organismal design.


[1]  de Visser JA, Hermisson J, Wagner GP, Ancel Meyers L, Bagheri-Chaichian H, et al. (2003) Perspective: Evolution and detection of genetic robustness. Evolution 57: 1959–1972.
[2]  Frank SA (2004) Genetic variation in cancer predisposition: mutational decay of a robust genetic control network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 8061–8065.
[3]  Kitano H (2004) Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 5: 826–837.
[4]  Wagner A (2005) Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[5]  Alon U (2007) An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
[6]  Hopfield JJ (1974) Kinetic proofreading: a new mechanism for reducing errors in biosynthetic processes requiring high specificity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 71: 4135–4139.
[7]  Alexander RM (1981) Factors of safety in the structure of animals. Sci Prog 67: 109–130.
[8]  Weibel ER, Taylor CR, Bolis L, editors. (1998) Principles of Animal Design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[9]  Diamond J (2002) Quantitative evolutionary design. J Physiol 542: 337–345.
[10]  Rice SH (1998) The evolution of canalization and the breaking of von Baer's laws: modeling the evolution of development with epistasis. Evolution 52: 647–657.
[11]  McKeithan TW (1995) Kinetic proofreading in T-cell receptor signal transduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92: 5042–5046.
[12]  Goldstein B, Faeder JR, Hlavacek WS (2004) Mathematical and computational models of immune-receptor signalling. Nat Rev Immunol 4: 445–456.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


微信:OALib Journal