EFFECT OF MUTATION AND RECOMBINATION ON THE GENOTYPE-PHENOTYPE MAP C. R. Stephens NNCP, Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM, Circuito Exterior, A.Postal 70-543 M´exico D.F. 04510 e-mail: [email protected] Abstract to selection. However, for which systems one predom- inates over the other is a much more vexed question. The effect of genetic operators other than Traditionally, the tendency has been to view selection selection, such as mutation and recombi- as an ordering agent and mutation and recombination nation, on the genotype-phenotype map is as “disordering” effects. The Neutral theory [2], for considered. In particular, when the geno- instance, in its traditional guise makes no statement typic fitness landscape exhibits a “symme- about any adaptive value of genetic drift, though oth- try”, i.e. many genotypes corresponding to ers [3, 4, 5] have raised the issue of whether or not the same phenotype have equal fitness val- adaptive evolution can benefit from neutral evolution. ues, it is shown that such operators can Thus, genetic operators other than selection have gen- break this symmetry. The consequences of erally been discounted as potential sources of order. this “induced symmetry breaking” are inves- Here, I am defining a genetic operator to be any op- tigated. Specifically, it is shown that it gener- eration H such that P (t +1) = HP (t), where P (t) is ically leads to an increase in order or self- the population at time t. organization in the system and to the phe- nomenon of orthogenesis. Additionally, it In this short paper I will attempt to put other op- is shown that it potentially leads to a more erators, such as mutation and recombination, onto a robust evolution circumventing some of the more democratic footing vis a vis selection. by present- problems of brittleness. The above points are ing and discussing a third alternative for explaining supported by explicit, analytic results asso- the origin of order in biological systems that also has ciated with some simple one and two-locus its origin in physics — “induced symmetry breaking”. models and also by some much more compli- The “symmetry” here referred to is that inherent in cated numerical simulations. the genotype-phenotype map when it is many-to-one, i.e. many genotypes correspond to the same pheno- arXiv:nlin/0006051v1 [nlin.AO] 30 Jun 2000 typic fitness value. It is of course not new to empha- 1 Introduction size the importance of the genotype-phenotype map in Darwinian evolution, see for instance [6, 7], how- Modulo the debate over the competing roles of selec- ever it is new to show how this map may self-organize tion and mutation the Darwinian concept of natural and provide a qualitative and quantitative framework selection has stood alone for nearly a century and a within which this can be understood. In particular, we half as the principle source of order in the natural will see how and under what circumstances the phe- world. More recently another paradigm has been pre- nomenon of orthogenesis may come about. sented [1] which draws for inspiration on the emer- In section 2 I will introduce the concepts of order, sym- gence of order in the physical rather than the biolog- metry and symmetry breaking. In section 3 I will give ical world. Simply put: is order a consequence of the analytic examples of induced symmetry breaking in adaptive changes that take place in a system due to the the context of some simple one and two-locus models. effect of its environment, or does order appear “spon- In section 4 I will briefly discuss some results found in taneously”, irrespective of any inherent selection? As some much more non-trivial models and in section 5 I in the selectionist/neutralist debate the correct answer will make some conclusions. is that order will appear both spontaneously and due 2 Order, Symmetry and Symmetry fore f(Ci)= f(Cj ), one sees that P (Ci,t)/P (Cj ,t)= Breaking constant, ∀t. We can in fact take this to be the defin- ing characteristic of the symmetry: that for Cg ⊂ G I will not go into detail about a precise definition of where φ(Cg ) = Cq, Cq being a given phenotype, “order”. For the purposes of this paper its most salient P (Ci,t)/P (Cj ,t) = constant, ∀t, and ∀ Ci, Cj ∈ Cg. characteristic is the following: that for a dynamical How may this symmetry be broken? In a finite gene system with state space G of dimension DG for late pool the symmetry will be broken spontaneously by times the system occupies a subspace U ⊂ G of di- stochastic effects. This can be understood in several mension DU ≪ DG. Thus, the more ordered a system ways, e.g. via the theory of branching processes [10] is the smaller the subspace into which it dynamically or using Kimura’s difusion approximation [2]. To lend evolves. a term from physics, such “spontaneous symmetry Intuitively, it is clear that selection will induce order breaking” lies at the heart of Kauffman’s ideas about in this sense. For example, in the presence of pure se- the origin of order. Thus, even in the absence of selec- lection an entire population will eventually order itself tion a system can dynamically evolve to a smaller sub- around the optimum present in the initial population. space, i.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking can lead to The dynamical attractor in this case is typically of di- an increase in order. mension zero. In the presence of mutation, such as in I will now turn to another form of symmetry breaking the Eigen model [8], the quasi-species represents the by considering the effect of the other genetic operators dynamical attractor. i.e. if one starts with a disor- besides selection defining dered random state then the effect of selection is to arrive at a more ordered state — the quasi-species. P (Ci,t +1)= As is well known, however, for a large class of fitness H({f(Cj )}, {pk}, {P (Cj,t)},t)P (Ci,t) (2) landscapes there exists a critical mutation rate above which there is no dynamical reduction onto a smaller where H is an operator that depends on the fitness dimension attractor, i.e. selection has its limits. landscape, {f(Cj )}, the probabilities, {pk}, to imple- ment the various genetic operators and on the pop- However, we must first ask what does selection mean? ulation composition {P (C ,t)}. I assume that one Selection can be most precisely thought of in terms of j can write H ≡ Hs + Ho, where Hs is the part of fitness and the corresponding notion of a fitness land- + the evolution operator associated with pure selection scape [9]. Fitness, fQ :−→ R , is most naturally de- and Ho contains the effect of the other genetic op- fined on the space of phenotypes, Q. In conjunction erators. The landscape symmetry will thus be pre- with the genotype-phenotype map, φ : G −→ Q, where served by the action of the other genetic operators if G is the space of genotypes, one may define an induced HoP (Ci,t)= HoP (Cj ,t) ∀t, and ∀Ci, Cj ∈ Cg. If this fitness function on the space of genotypes, fG = fQ ◦φ. condition is not satisfied we will say that the symmetry As the genotype-phenotype map is more often than has been broken by the action of the other genetic op- not non-injective (many-to-one) the function fG will erators; instead of a spontaneous symmetry breaking be degenerate, many genotypes corresponding to the there is an “induced” symmetry breaking. same fitness value. Thus, fitness defines an equivalence relation on G, many genotypes being equivalent selec- As a quantitative measure of this symmetry breaking tively. A simple example of this would be the stan- we will use the concept of “effective” fitness, defined dard synonym “symmetry” of the genetic code. I will via [11, 12] therefore refer to the equivalence of a set of genotypes feff (C ,t) under the action of selection (i.e. they’re all equally i P (Ci,t +1)= ¯ P (Ci,t) (3) fit) as a symmetry. Obviously, by definition, selection f(t) preserves this symmetry. One can see this explicitly, One may think of the effective fitness as represent- assuming proportional selection as a concrete exam- ing the effect of all genetic operators in a single “se- ple, from the evolution equation for the probability of lection” factor. Hence, if only pure selection was al- finding a genotype Ci lowed feff (Ci,t) would represent the fitness value at time t required to increase or decrease P (C ,t) by f(Ci) i P (Ci,t +1)= P (Ci,t) (1) the same amount as an evolution involving all the f¯(t) genetic operators and with selective fitness f(Ci). If where f¯(t) is the average population fitness. Consider- feff (Ci,t) > f(Ci,t) then the effect of the genetic op- ing the same equation for a genotype Cj , where Ci and erators other than selection is to enhance the number Cj both correspond to the same phenotype and there- present of genotype Ci relative to the number found in the absence of those operators. The converse is true of random mutations. This is the phenomenon of or- when feff (Ci,t) <f(Ci,t). thogenesis and is simply a result of induced symmetry breaking and is quantitatively measured by the effec- 3 Analytic Examples of Induced tive fitness function. Symmetry Breaking Naturally this phenomenon encourages one to ask just when neutral evolution is actually “neutral”.