Mutation-bias driving the evolution of mutation rates

In classic game theory, we are often faced with multiple potential equilibria between which to select with no unequivocal way to choose between these alternatives. If you’ve ever heard Artem justify dynamic approaches, such as evolutionary game theory, then you’ve seen this equilibrium selection problem take center stage. Natural selection has an analogous ‘problem’ of many local fitness peaks. Is the selection between them simply an accidental historical process? Or is there a method to the madness that is independent of the the environment that defines the fitness landscape and that can produce long term evolutionary trends?

Two weeks ago, in my first post of this series, I talked about an idea Wallace Arthur (2004) calls “developmental bias”, where the variation of traits in a population can determine which fitness peak the population evolves to. The idea is that if variation is generated more frequently in a particular direction, then fitness peaks in that direction are more easily discovered. Arthur hypothesized that this mechanism can be responsible for long-term evolutionary trends.

A very similar idea was discovered and called “mutation bias” by Yampolsky & Stoltzfus (2001). The difference between mutation bias and developmental bias is that Yampolsky & Stoltzfus (2001) described the idea in the language of discrete genetics rather than trait-based phenotypic evolution. They also did not invoke developmental biology. The basic mechanism, however, was the same: if a population is confronted with multiple fitness peaks nearby, mutation bias will make particular peaks much more likely.

In this post, I will discuss the Yampolsky & Stoltzfus (2001) “mutation bias”, consider applications of it to the evolution of mutation rates by Gerrish et al. (2007), and discuss how mutation is like and unlike other biological traits.

Read more of this post

Don’t treat the player, treat the game: buffer therapy and bevacizumab

No matter how much I like modeling for the sake of modeling, or science for the sake of science, working in a hospital adds some constraints. At some point people look over at you measuring games in the Petri dish and ask “why are you doing this?” They expect an answer that involves something that benefits patients. That might mean prevention, early detection, or minimizing side-effects. But in most cases it means treatment: how does your work help us treat cancer? Here, I think, evolutionary game theory — and the Darwinian view of cancer more generally — offers a useful insight in the titular slogan: don’t treat the player, treat the game.

One of the most salient negative features of cancer is the tumour — the abnormal mass of cancer cells. It seems natural to concentrate on getting rid of these cells, or at least reducing their numbers. This is why tumour volume has become a popular surrogate endpoint for clinical trials. This is treating the player. Instead, evolutionary medicine would ask us to find the conditions that caused the system to evolve towards the state of having a large tumour and how we can change those conditions. Evolutionary therapy aims to change the environmental pressures on the tumour, such that the cancerous phenotypes are no longer favoured and are driven to extinction (or kept in check) by Darwinian forces. The goal is to change the game so that cancer proves to be a non-viable strategy.[1]

In this post I want to look at the pairwise game version of my joint work with Robert Vander Velde, David Basanta, and Jacob Scott on the Warburg effect (Warburg, 1956; Gatenby & Gillies, 2004) and acid-mediated tumour invasion (Gatenby, 1995; Gatenby & Gawlinski, 2003). Since in this work we are concerned with the effects of acidity and vascularization on cancer dynamics, I will concentrate on interventions that affect acidity (buffer therapy; for early empirical work, see Robey et al., 2009) or vascularization (angiogenesis inhibitor therapy like bevacizumab).

My goal isn’t to say something new about these therapies, but to use them as illustrations for the importance of changing between qualitatively different dynamic regimes. In particular, I will be dealing with the oncological equivalent of a spherical cow in frictionless vacuum. I have tried to add some caveats in the footnotes, but these could be multiplied indefinitely without reaching an acceptably complete picture.

Read more of this post

Variation for supply driven evolution

I’ve taken a very long hiatus (nearly 5 years!) from this blog. I suppose getting married and getting an MD are good excuses, but Artem has very kindly let me return. And I greatly appreciate this chance, because I’d like to summarize an idea I had been working on for a while. So far, only two publication has come out of it (Xue et al., 2015a,b), but it’s an idea that has me excited. So excited that I defended a thesis on it this Tuesday. For now, I call it supply-driven evolution, where I try to show how the generation of variation can determine long-term evolution.

Evolutionary theoreticians have long known that how variation is generated has a decisive role in evolutionary outcome. The reason is that natural selection can only choose among what has been generated, so focusing on natural selection will not produce a full understanding of evolution. But how does variation affect evolution, and can variation be the decisive factor in how evolution proceeds? I believe that the answer is “frequently, yes,” because it does not actually compete with natural selection. I’ll do a brief overview of the literature in the first few posts. By the end, I hope how this mechanism can explain some forms of irreversible evolution, stuff I had blogged about five years ago.

Read more of this post