Genome heterogeneity drives the evolution of species

1, 2 1 Mattia Miotto∗ and Lorenzo Monacelli∗ 1Department of Physics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy 2Center for Life Nanoscience, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy Most of the DNA that composes a complex organism is non-coding and defined as junk. Even the coding part is composed of genes that affect the phenotype differently. Therefore, a random mutation has an effect on the specimen fitness that strongly depends on the DNA region where it occurs. Such heterogeneous composition should be linked to the evolutionary process. However, the way is still unknown. Here, we study a minimal model for the evolution of an ecosystem where two antagonist species struggle for survival on a lattice. Each specimen possesses a toy genome, encoding for its phenotype. The gene pool of populations changes in time due to the effect of random mutations on genes (entropic force) and of interactions with the environment and between individuals (natural selection). We prove that the relevance of each gene in the manifestation of the phenotype is a key fea- ture for evolution. In the presence of a uniform gene relevance, a mutational meltdown is observed. Natural selection acts quenching the ecosystem in a non-equilibriumstate that slowly drifts, decreas- ing the fitness and leading to the extinction of the species. Conversely, if a specimen is provided with a heterogeneous gene relevance, natural selection wins against entropic forces, and the species evolves increasing its fitness. We finally show that heterogeneity together with spatial correlations is responsible for spontaneous sympatric speciation.

Evolution by natural selection shaped the marvelous drug resistance is under much scrutiny, too, since the biodiversity we presently observe in nature. Starting selection done by antibiotics influences the evolution of with one (or few) living organisms, the tree of life pro- resilient traits. Experimentally, the evolution of genomes gressively branched as living beings managed to survive during speciation has been studied only recently with to different environments through adaptations and spe- the availability of next-generation sequencing technolo- ciations [1]. gies [13–15]. In particular, recent findings highlighted Both processes arise by a complex interplay between how mutations on certain genes considerably enhance intrinsic forces (e.g. mutations) and extrinsic ones, pro- the speciation process [15]. Also the increase of the vided by the interactions between the different compo- genome length, due to duplication errors (e.g. the nents of the ecosystem [2]. This results in changes of presence of redundant genes/chromosomes) has been behavior, morphology, and physiology (or combinations pointed as one mechanism for evolution/speciation [16]. thereof) in the organisms. Since its first formulation, the theory of evolution re- Parallel to experiments, several theoretical models garded natural selection, i.e. the effect of environment were developed to study ecosystem dynamics[17, 18] and and interaction inter and intraspecies in selecting the or- evolution, both at the molecular level [7, 19] and at the ganisms with maximum fitness, as the pivotal mecha- population level, such as population-environment inter- nisms of evolution. Several more years were required to action [20–23] and specie-species interactions [24–31]. clearly define the ’microscopic’ role of genome mutations In particular, agent-based models proved to be very (alongside genetic drift, hitchhiking ext.) as the other efficient to include spatial information/features [32–36]. main component of the evolutionary process [3–6]. Here, evolution is accounted either at phenotype level, Quantifying the simultaneous effects of natural selec- i.e. the phenotype of a species is randomly modi- tion and genomic mutations is far from being an easy fied generation by generation according to a particular arXiv:1912.01444v1 [q-bio.PE] 3 Dec 2019 task [5, 7–9]. Its understanding is however not only a law [20, 24, 37], or at genotype level, i.e. an evolution fascinating theoretical challenge but carries important law is assumed for a genome upon which the phenotype practical implications. In fact, a continuously increasing is computed [38–41]. More refined models have been con- literature highlights the connection between the rules sidered accounting for dominant and recessive alleles, sex governing ecology to the one regarding cell popula- recombination (cross-over) or spatially resolved ecosys- tions [10–12]. Preeminent is the case of cancer cells, that tem dynamics [41–43]. are both subject to high entropic forces (fast mutation This work aims to study how heterogeneity in gene rates) and a strong natural selection, due to the selective relevance affects the evolution of the species. In partic- pressure given by both the competition with the immune ular, we study the evolution of a minimal ecosystem on system and the effect of anti-cancer therapies. Bacteria a lattice, initially composed by one species of predators and one of preys. Each specimen possesses a toy genome composed of 3N genes that encode for three essential macro-phenotypic features of the animal: i) its capabil- ∗The authors contributed equally to the present work. ity of moving/hunting, ii) its fertility and iii) the mean 2 life-time of the specimen (mortality). Genome is subject to point mutations, i.e. Poisson- The genome pool of the two prey-predator species can distributed random events in time occurring with a con- change in time due to random mutations at the level of stant rate for each gene every time a new individual is the single genes (entropic force) and to predation/death born (reproduction is asexual). If a mutation event oc- events (selection force). Aiming at limiting the num- curs on a gene, its value is reset to a random number ber of parameters and developing an evolutionary model between 0 and 1. In order to tune the average value of as minimal as possible, we do not insert mating in the the new mutated gene, we choose the new value gi = x model, i.e. we have an asexual reproduction. Since mat- according to the following probability distribution: ing is not taken into consideration, we will not look for speciation according to Mayr’s Biology Speciation Con- 1 1 cept, where different species are separated if mating does x 2 q(x) = 1 (1 x) h i − (2) not produce fertile off-springs [4]. Instead, we speak of x − − h i  speciation in terms of differences in phenotype distribu- tions [44], where well-separated peaks can be interpreted with x is a tunable parameter that determines the h i as different species while the width of each peak accounts average value of the gene after the mutation (see Fig- for the intra-species differentiation. ure 1b). Such kind of asymmetric distributions is widely Two different kinds of genome are considered: i) a uni- used for phenotype modeling, e.g. in the contest of bac- form genome (where all the genes have the same impact terial growth rates, where slow rates dominate over fast on the phenotype), and a heterogeneous genome (where ones [20, 48, 49]. In this way, deleterious mutations can each gene has a different weight on the overall pheno- be enforced to be more common than favorable ones. type). We show that, while in the first case entropy This is quite reasonable, as a random mutation in the dominates, fostering the mutational meltdown [45–47], coding DNA produces a random change in the amino- in the latter one natural selection allows the ecosystem acid chain of a protein, that is far more likely to produce to increase predator fitness. For each genome, we also an unfolded structure than a more functional one [50, 51]. look for the emergence of spontaneous speciation. Finally, in this work we will consider two weight dis- tributions (see Figure 1c):

I. MODEL a uniform distribution, where all genes equally con- • tribute to manifest the phenotype (discussed in Sec. II A) We consider a variant of the EcoLat (Ecosystem on Lattice) model [34], where each site of a L L square × 1 lattice can be occupied exclusively either by the environ- Wi = , (3) N ment or a prey or a predator. To use the same notation adopted in [34], we identify preys as fishes (f) and preda- a power-law distribution allowing for the presence tors as sharks (s). At every discrete time step, fishes can • m f of preeminent genes, as discussed in Sec. II B, move, breed or remain still with probability pf , pf and m f m m α 1 pf pf . Sharks can move (ps ) or remain still (1 ps ). Wi i− . (4) Furthermore,− − predators eat preys whenever they step− into ∝ a cell occupied by a prey. In this case, sharks can repro- f To assess the outcome of evolution, we define the fit- duce with probability ps . If a shark does not eat a fish ness measured as the average size of the population. Such during its round, it can die for starvation with probabil- d definition, profoundly linked with the usual fitness mea- ity ps. We assumed that fishes may only die murdered d surements (growth rate or the number of nephews per by a predator (i.e. pf = 0). individual), is enforced by the finite carrying capacity, The set of three probabilities, pm , pf , pd , dictated by the lattice. { (s,f) (s,f) (s,f)} constitutes the macro-phenotype of each individual, dic- tating the rates with which the specimen carries out three essential tasks of life. II. RESULTS Each specimen has a genome that codes the macro- phenotype of the individual. The macro-phenotype is A. Uniform genome obtained as a weighted averages over all the N genes (gi) that code for a particular feature: To begin with, we investigated the model behavior in N presence of a uniform genome, where each phenotype is (m,f,d) determined as the uniform average over all the genes as- py = gyiWi y = (s,f) , (1) i=1 sociated to that phenotype (as given by (1) with (3)). X After preparing the ecosystem in a non-equilibrium where Wi expresses the weight of the i-th gene in the steady state (NESS) with fixed initial phenotypes, we manifestation of the phenotype (see Figure 1a). turned on mutations and followed the evolution of prey’s 3

FIG. 1: Features of the EvoLat model. a) Snapshot of an EvoLat configuration in the steady-state regime. Fishes are colored in yellow, sharks in blue, while purple cells represent the environment. Each animal on the lattice possesses a toy genome, composed of 3N genes. Each gene is represented by a real number between 0 and 1 that concurs in manifesting three macro-phenotypes associated with the animals. Animal mobility is represented by the probability of moving, pm, their fertility by the breeding probability (pf ) and their life-time by the death probability (pd). b)Mutation events can happen with a rate, µ with equal probability on each gene. If one gene is subject to a mutation, a new value between 0 and 1 is extracted from the underline phenotype distribution q(x), whose asymmetry accounts for the fact that mutations tend to be deleterious for the organisms. c) The phenotype of the individual is obtained as the weighted average over all the N independent genes encoding for it. In the present work, we assume two possible kinds of weights, uniform mean (all genes equally concur to the phenotype) or power-law weighted mean (some genes influence the phenotype more than others). and predator’s traits on long periods. To prevent preda- tion is observed. All distributions, even if with differ- tors to acquire infinite lifetimes, we strongly favored dele- ent timescales, tend at long times to converge toward a terious mutations in the shark death rate (entropic force). unique final distribution with a mean close to the aver- This is achieved by tuning the x parameter in (2). In age value chosen for the entropic force (dashed line in the fact, if the average phenotypeh isi above (or below) x , figure). The time required to reach this value diverges random mutations will try to restore it around x . h i quickly (following a power-law with exponent 2.57), h i the farther we prepared the system from the final∼ state. FIG. 2a shows the dynamic of the predator mortal- Note that the exponent of the power-law slightly de- ity distribution for various initial conditions (marked pends on the genome size N, as shown in FIG. 2c. This by different colors). In all simulations, sharks have a kind of dynamic reminds of a system close to a glassy well-defined phenotype at each time step, so no specia- 4

FIG. 2: Time evolution of predators death-rate after quenching. The predator relaxation time diverges as a power-law, in a way that resemble the dynamic of glassy systems. Different colors correspond to different simulations performed starting from several values of psd. a) Shark mortality distribution. The dashed vertical line is the stationary state for predator growing in a breeding farm (no natural selection).b) Relaxation time as a function of the initial phenotype. c) Exponent of the power law as a function of the genome length. It converges to a value of about 2.57. Simulation in panel a and b are performed with N = 90. phase [52] where the distance between the initial and fi- the entropic limit. This phenomenon is observed in real nal phenotypes plays the role of the difference between ecosystems and is known as mutational meltdown[45–47]. the quenched and equilibrium temperatures in a typical The meltdown we observe originates by the even impact quenching experiment. Such behavior provides great in- genes have on the phenotype. We discuss how it scales sight into the evolutionary dynamics. Firstly, we observe with the system carrying capacity in SI. the role natural selection plays in freezing the system into a meta-stable state for long times. In fact, pheno- types subject to the sole effect of entropic forces would FIG. 2 clearly show how evolution is not able to im- converge to the steady-state exponentially fast (see SI). prove the fitness of predators. In fact, although natural Furthermore, we see how the ecosystem and predators, in selection is freezing the dynamics (strongly reducing the particular, react to negative mutations. In fact, shark fit- effect of genetic drift) if we wait for sufficient time, sharks ness decreases due to the entropic force of the mutations will finally increase their death-rate, therefore reducing (see SI for the anti-correlation between fitness and shark their fitness. This behavior is opposite to what is com- death-rate). If a population has a phenotype distribution monly observed in nature, where the combined effect of whose mean is far from the mean entropy value ( x in mutations and natural selection leads to an overall im- (2)), a mutation of the genome will tend to produceh i an provement of the fitness on long times. individual with lower fitness than the rest of the popula- tion. The lowest the fitness the faster this individual will This finding highlights the deleterious role of entropy be suppressed by natural selection. in the evolution of the species. We will show in the next If the fitness worsens only slightly (the mutation is section that the capability to improve the fitness can be very soft), the specimen will reproduce and that delete- recovered even in the presence of a strong entropic force if rious mutation will remain inside the genome pool. On genome variability is considered. This feature alone will long timescales, the accumulations of these very soft neg- be able both to allow predators to evolve and to provide ative mutations slowly drive the whole population toward a mechanism for spontaneous speciation. 5

B. Heterogeneous genome

To include the effect of genome heterogeneity in the simulation, i.e. the uneven impact that different genes have on the phenotype, we inserted a gene-dependent weight ( (4)) in (1). FIG. 3 depicts the time evolution of the distribution of shark’s mortality starting from different initial values for two different exponent of (4), namely α = 1 and α = 2. The evolution is observed with both choices of exponents. Predators improve their expected life-time and the fitness (see SI) much above the equilibrium value obtained in FIG. 2. Positive evolution occurs thank to the combination of two effects; i) the phenotype population is normally quenched (see Sec. II A) and ii) genes exert a different role on the phenotype manifestation. The quenching al- lows the quasi-species to survive in an out-of-equilibrium situation where common random negative mutations usu- ally kill the individuals. The species can survive long enough that a very rare, positive, mutation occurs in an FIG. 3: Evolution of the shark death-probability dis- important gene (with a big Wi), causing a discontinu- ity in the phenotype distribution and a sudden evolution tribution as a function of time, in presence of a het- of the population. This speciation creates two kinds of erogeneous genome. Heterogeneity allows the specie to evolve to higher average life-time, while this does not occur predators, with a quantitative different phenotype. The in presence of a uniform genome (FIG. 2). Different colors quasi-species which is more fitted to the environment correspond to different starting values. The two simulation very quickly gets fixed while the less fitted alleles van- correspond to a different value of the power-law exponent α ish from the gene pool of the population. (see (4)). Both simulations exhibit a qualitative different be- Such a rare, discontinuous event is not possible in a haviour if compared to a uniform genome. The less fitted individual can improve their fitness far above the entropic uniform genome, where each gene has only a moderate value. impact on the overall phenotype and a massive number of positive mutations would be required to obtain the same shift ( that is a so rare event that never occurs in III. DISCUSSION practice). Conversely, heterogeneity allows the positive discontinuity in the phenotype to depend on the mutation We simulate the evolution of a minimal prey-predator of a relatively small number of genes, which is much more system. Each species is characterized by a toy genome likely to occur. through which three macro-phenotypes manifest. Pro- Heterogeneity has another important effect on preys viding each specimen with N genes for each phenotype, phenotype distribution. In FIG. 4 we show the preys we showed that the gene relevance (i.e. the weight of breeding rate as it evolves as a function of time. After a each gene according to Eq. 1) in coding for phenotypes while, the prey population splits into two well-separated is a key feature for evolution. traits. In particular, the two species have a different re- To survive, an organism must be robust to deleterious f production rate (pf ), respectively of 0.78 and 0.90, but mutations. A convenient choice, the organism can opt they share the same fitness in the environment, therefore for, could be to rely on many genes for the manifestation no one overcomes the other. This is a very important on one phenotype. If the information for the phenotype feature for sympatric speciation, and it is possible only is evenly distributed in several genes, then a damage on thanks to the presence of the spatial organization of the some gene has the minimum impact on the resulting phe- animals. In fact, the species with a higher reproduction notype. As a counterpart, we showed that this condition rate tend to regenerate the shoals faster, being, therefore, favors the accumulation of detrimental mutations that more prone to shark predation. This delicate trade-off lead to the mutational meltdown. Conversely, packing all between higher fertility and the different spatial organi- the phenotype information in few genes enables abrupt zation of the shoal that favors predation stabilizes the variations of phenotype. This prevents the mutational two species, that can coexist. In a mean-field scenario, meltdown, at the cost of reducing the differentiation be- predators would hunt the two species in the same way, tween individuals and consequently the adaptability of and this leads, at a long time, to a supremacy of the prey the species. In this case, a drastic change in the environ- with the higher reproduction rate. ment would provoke a sudden extinction of the species. 6

FIG. 4: Outcomes of evolution: speciation. a) Time evolution of the distribution of fish filiation probability. At time zero, the population of fishes is prepared with a filiation rate of 0.8. After about 1500 chronons, the population splits into two species with a well-separated trait. b) Snapshots of two EvoLat configurations during the evolution. In the left snapshot, only a species of fish is observed. In the right-side one, two fish species have formed. The spatial distribution of sharks differs in the proximity of the two species, spotting that sharks are adopting different hunting strategies.

Relying on a heterogeneous distribution of informa- heritance [54]. According to our simulations, two key tion in many genes assures both broad differentiation of ingredients are important to observe the emergence of a huge genome, and the possibility to have astonishing sympatric speciations: the heterogeneity in gene rele- positive mutations that drive the evolution and prevents vance and the explicit spatial extension of the simula- the mutational meltdown. EvoLat, albeit of represent- tion. Moreover, our minimal model provides a theoreti- ing a minimal model of an ecosystem, reproduces a rich cal framework to deal with the everlasting debate about variety of scenarios, upon varying a single parameter. the physical feasibility of evolution. In fact, tuning the α exponent in Eq. 4, i.e. assigning The idea that life had evolved by the combined action different weights to genes associated to the same pheno- of mutations in the genome and natural selection of the type, the system exhibits different behaviors. Indeed, a most fitted individuals is accepted by a vast majority of uniform distribution of weights (α = 0) leads to a pro- scientists. Those, who are skeptics, argue that random gressive reduction of the fitness due to the accumulation mutations on the genome should progressively increase of detrimental mutations (see Fig. 2). On the opposite the disorder (entropy) and consequently be incompatible side, if only one gene encodes for all the traits (α = ) ∞ with life. Indeed, this happens only in case of a uniform the mutational meltdown is prevented as species can im- genome, where mutations lead the phenotypes toward the prove their fitness. However, in this regime, there is no entropic values. This argument is, therefore, based on the differentiation inside the same population, exposing the wrong assumption that all the genes equally contribute species to the threat of sudden environmental changes. to the phenotype. Life lies in between, where the high impact of few genes prevents the mutational meltdown while the bulk of the In our simple model, each part of the genetic sequence remaining genes guarantees differentiation. influences the phenotype with different weights. This is a coarse grain representation of the underlying biolog- Notably, fishes provided with a heterogeneous genome ical mechanism through which the phenotype is mani- respond to the fluctuation of the environment and to the fested. In nature, only 2-3% of DNA is “coding” (it can natural selection operated by sharks by a sympatric spe- be translated into mRNA and then into proteins). Sev- ciation [53]. Spontaneous speciation and in particular eral studies[55, 56] have shown that also the non-coding sympatric one is rarely reproduced [41] by models which DNA (often referred to as junk) can affect the pheno- manage to observe differentiation due to Mendelian in- type. This is a mechanism for strong heterogeneity in 7 how the phenotype manifests from the underlying genetic On the other hand, the reduced number of parameters sequence. allows one to look for general features of evolution. Overall, in our opinion, the most limiting choices we In conclusion, we proved that heterogeneity in gene rel- made were not to include sexual reproduction, correla- evance is a key feature to prevent a mutational meltdown tions in gene expression and modifications in the food in a species. Moreover, we showed evidence that spatial chain (a prey cannot become a predator). This limits the correlations are fundamental to account for sympatric sources of variation between individuals only to the effect speciation. These findings contribute to disentangling of mutations since both sexual recombination and gene how genomes change to create new species and provide a flow are neglected together with the complex correlations step forward in understanding the mechanisms of evolu- between the expression of genes confers to the specimen. tion.

[1] D. Howard, A. Howard, S. Berlocher, and A. Berlocher, [25] M. He, H. Ruan, and C. Yu, International Journal of Endless Forms: Species and Speciation (Oxford Univer- Modern Physics C 14, 1237 (2003). sity Press, 1998). [26] M. He, Q.-H. Pan, and S. Wang, International Journal [2] O. F. Cook, Science 23, 506 (1906). of Modern Physics C 16, 177 (2005), URL https://doi. [3] E. Freese and A. Yoshida, in Evolving Genes and Proteins org/10.1142%2Fs0129183105007017. (Elsevier, 1965), pp. 341–355. [27] A. Pekalski and M. Droz, Physical Review E 73 (2006). [4] E. Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations [28] A. P´erez-Escudero, J. Friedman, and J. Gore, Pro- on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (Cambridge ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, University Press, 2004). 13995 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas. [5] M. Nei, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1606456113. 104, 12235 (2007). [29] G. M. Abernethy, M. McCartney, and D. H. Glass, Com- [6] M. Kimura, Cambridge University Press (1983). munications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simula- [7] M. Eigen, Die Naturwissenschaften 58, 465 (1971), URL tion 56, 9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf00623322. [30] M. Barbier, J.-F. Arnoldi, G. Bunin, and M. Loreau, [8] R. Hershberg, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biol- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, ogy 7, a018077 (2015). 2156 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas. [9] S. Forcelloni and A. Giansanti, bioRxiv (2019). 1710352115. [10] Q. Zhang and R. H. Austin, Annual Review of Condensed [31] S. M. J. Portalier, G. F. Fussmann, M. Loreau, and Matter Physics 3, 363 (2012). M. Cherif, Functional Ecology 33, 323 (2018), URL [11] K. S. Korolev, J. B. Xavier, and J. Gore, Nature Reviews https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1365-2435.13254. Cancer 14, 371 (2014). [32] Dewdney, Scientific American (1984). [12] N. McGranahan and C. Swanton, Cell 168, 613 (2017). [33] T. Antal, M. Droz, A. Lipowski, and G. Odor,´ Physical [13] D. Cavalieri, J. P. Townsend, and D. L. Hartl, Pro- Review E 64 (2001). ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, 12369 [34] M. Miotto and L. Monacelli, Phys. Rev. E 98, 042402 (2000). (2018). [14] B. J. Shapiro, J. Friedman, O. X. Cordero, S. P. Pre- [35] M. Mobilia, I. T. Georgiev, and U. C. T¨auber, Physical heim, S. C. Timberlake, G. Szab´o,M. F. Polz, and E. J. Review E 73 (2006). Alm, Science 336, 48 (2012), URL https://doi.org/ [36] U. Dobramysl, M. Mobilia, M. Pleimling, and U. C. 10.1126%2Fscience.1218198. T¨auber, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- [15] C. R. Campbell, J. W. Poelstra, and A. D. Yoder, Bio- oretical (2017). logical Journal of the Linnean Society 124, 561 (2018). [37] E. Kussell, Science 309, 2075 (2005), URL https://doi. [16] P. J, H. O, D. S, and L. I. J, Genes 9, 88 (2018). org/10.1126%2Fscience.1114383. [17] A. Lotka, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S (1920). [38] P. A. P. Moran, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- [18] V. Volterra, McGraw-Hill (1931). bridge Philosophical Society 80, 331 (1976), URL https: [19] D. Baji´c,J. C. C. Vila, Z. D. Blount, and A. S´anchez, //doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0305004100052956. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, [39] J. Swetina and P. Schuster, Biophysical Chem- 11286 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas. istry 16, 329 (1982), URL https://doi.org/10.1016% 1808485115. 2F0301-4622%2882%2987037-3. [20] A. De Martino, T. Gueudr´e,and M. Miotto, Phys. Rev. [40] T. J. P. Penna, Journal of Statistical Physics 78, 1629 E 99, 012417 (2019). (1995), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02180147. [21] E. Kussell, Science 309, 2075 (2005). [41] J. Friedman, E. J. Alm, and B. J. Shapiro, PLoS [22] D. De Martino, F. Capuani, and A. De Martino, Physical ONE 8, e53539 (2013), URL https://doi.org/10.1371% Biology 13 (2016). 2Fjournal.pone.0053539. [23] I. Bena, M. Droz, J. Szwabi´nski,and A. Pekalski, Physi- [42] A. O. Sousa, The European Physical Journal B 39, 521 cal Review E 76 (2007). (2004). [24] N. J. Savill and P. Hogeweg, Proceedings of the Royal [43] J. Dalmau, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 80, 1689 Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 265, 25 (2018), ISSN 1522-9602, URL https://doi.org/10. (1998). 1007/s11538-018-0420-8. 8

[44] J. Garcia-Bernardo and M. J. Dunlop, Biophysical Jour- [51] M. Miotto, P. P. Olimpieri, L. D. Rienzo, F. Ambrosetti, nal 110, 2278 (2016). P. Corsi, R. Lepore, G. G. Tartaglia, and E. Milanetti, [45] T. OHTA, Nature 246, 96 (1973), URL https://doi. Bioinformatics (2018). org/10.1038%2F246096a0. [52] W. Kob, F. Sciortino, and P. Tartaglia, Europhysics Let- [46] M. Lynch, J. Conery, and R. Burger, The American ters (EPL) 49, 590 (2000), URL https://doi.org/10. Naturalist 146, 489 (1995), URL https://doi.org/10. 1209%2Fepl%2Fi2000-00191-8. 1086%2F285812. [53] B. M. Fitzpatrick, J. A. Fordyce, and S. Gavrilets, Jour- [47] A. Grande-Perez, E. Lazaro, P. Lowenstein, E. Domingo, nal of Evolutionary Biology 21, 1452 (2008). and S. C. Manrubia, Proceedings of the National [54] R. Aguil´ee,A. Lambert, and D. Claessen, Journal of Evo- Academy of Sciences 102, 4448 (2005), URL https: lutionary Biology 24, 2663 (2011), URL https://doi. //doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0408871102. org/10.1111%2Fj.1420-9101.2011.02392.x. [48] D. D. Martino, F. Capuani, and A. D. Martino, Physical [55] C. Bi´emont and C. Vieira, Nature 443, 521 (2006). Biology 13, 036005 (2016). [56] S. Prabhakar, A. Visel, J. A. Akiyama, M. Shoukry, K. D. [49] D. De Martino, F. Capuani, and A. De Martino, Physical Lewis, A. Holt, I. Plajzer-Frick, H. Morrison, D. R. Fitz- Review E 96 (2017). Patrick, V. Afzal, et al., Science 321, 1346 (2008), URL [50] S. Cocco, C. Feinauer, M. Figliuzzi, R. Monasson, and https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1159974. M. Weigt, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 032601 (2018). Supplementary Material Genome heterogeneity drives the evolution of species

1, 2 1, 2 Mattia Miotto∗ and Lorenzo Monacelli∗ 1Department of Physics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy 2Center for Life Nanoscience, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy arXiv:1912.01444v1 [q-bio.PE] 3 Dec 2019

∗ The authors contributed equally to the present work. 2

Entropic forces in farms

Here, we compute the time evolution of a predator population in a “farm”, i.e. supplying the predator with an infinite source of food, allowing them to reproduce without the effect of natural selection. In this case, each gene of the new generation will have a probability of a mutation given by the mutation rate. Therefore the master equation for the genome of the phenotype x is:

1 g (t + δ) = p dy yq(y) + (1 p )g (t) (1) xi mut − mut xi Z0

1 x = dy yq(y) (2) h i Z0 In the limit δ 0 we get: → d g = p ( x g ) (3) dt xi mut h i − xi

0 gxi (0) = px (4)

0 p t g (t) = (p x )e− mut + x (5) xi x − h i h i The overall phenotype of the individual is:

N

px(t) = Wigxi (t). (6) i=1 X Since each gene evolves independently in absence of natural selection, we have:

0 p t p (t) = (p x )e− mut + x (7) x x − h i h i

Therefore, the phenotype converges to the expected value of the entropic forces after a typical time of 1/pmut independent of the particular initial state px.

Mutational Meltdown

The mutational meltdown is an evolutionary process where deleterious mutations accumulate in time, progressively decreasing the fitness of the population until extinction. We observe an analogous process in Figure 2 of the main text. This process is known to be affected by the carrying capacity. To highlight this effect, we simulated two lattices with different sizes (L1 = 256 and L2 = 512). We find a (small) increase of relaxation times with the carrying capacity of the system (Fig. 3): the higher the carry- ing capacity, the slower the mutational meltdown. This is in agreement with the theory of mutational meltdown[1–3]. To get an intuitive idea of why the dependence on the carrying capacity is so small, we can do a simple calculation. Natural selection is the force that competes with the accumulation of random deleterious mutations. In a population of size N, natural selection acts favoring the most fitted individuals. A robust population is differentiated, where the individual with the best fitness is distant from the average.

max λ λ (8) − h i

The probability of having the fitness of all individuals below λM is:

N λM P (λ < λM ,N) = p(λ) (9) Z−∞ ! 3

Best vs Worst individuals 9

8

7

6

5

4

Fitness difference 3

2

1

0 100 101 102 103 104 105 Population size

Figure 1: Average difference between the most fitted and the mean individual as a function of the population size (robustness to meltdown). The improvement of the robustness of the population increases sub-logarithmic. where p(λ) is the distribution of the fitness for each individual. The probability distribution of the maximum fitness among N individuals is d P˜(λM ) = P (λ < λM ,N) = NP (λ < λM ,N 1)p(λM ) (10) dλM − In figure 1, we show the robustness of the population to meltdown (8) versus the size of the population, where p(λ) is a Gaussian with unitary variance. As expected, the robustness of the population increases with its size N, however, this grows slower than a logarithm. No surprise that simply quadruplicating the size of the lattice has a small impact on the meltdown.

[1] A. Grande-Perez, E. Lazaro, P. Lowenstein, E. Domingo, and S. C. Manrubia, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 4448 (2005), URL https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0408871102. [2] T. Ohta, Nature 246, 96 (1973), URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2F246096a0. [3] M. Lynch, J. Conery, and R. Burger, The American Naturalist 146, 489 (1995), URL https://doi.org/10.1086%2F285812. 4

Figure 2: Time evolution of predators death-rate phenotype after quenching. The predator relaxation time diverges as a power-law, in a way that resemble the dynamic of glassy systems. Different colors correspond to different simulations performed starting from several values of psd. The dashed vertical line is the stationary state for predator growing in a breeding farm (no natural selection). 5

Figure 3: Evolution of the shark death-probability distribution as a function of time, in presence of a hetero- geneous genome. Heterogeneity allows the specie to evolve to higher average life-time, while this does not occur in presence of a uniform genome (Figure 2). Different colors correspond to different starting values. The less fitted individual can improve their fitness far above the entropic value. 6

Shark fitness/death rate anticorrelation

0.250 Corr = ­0.88

0.225

0.200

0.175 Fitness 0.150

0.125

0.100

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 psd

Figure 4: Anti-correlation between the fitness and the death-rate for predators. Fitness is defined the average number of individuals in the population.