in

The effect of the fitness gradient on fixation probability


Abstract

Evolutionary biology examines how the genetic and phenotypic composition of populations changes over time. An important goal is to determine the fixation probability of a single advantageous mutant that arises in a homogeneous population of N residents. Many real populations experience environmental gradients that cause mutations to be beneficial in some spatial regions but harmful in others. Here, we study the fixation probability of a mutant placed on a simple one-dimensional spatial structure that experiences such a gradient. The mutant’s fitness varies linearly from 1 − s to 1 + s, whereas the resident fitness is constant and equal to 1. The existing literature suggests that such heterogeneity in the mutant’s fitness should lead to a decrease in its fixation probability. However, in this work, we find that small, non-negligible gradients ((s < 1/sqrt{N})) substantially increase the fixation probability, while larger gradients ((s > (log N)/sqrt{N})) substantially decrease it. Moreover, we quantify the strength of this phenomenon analytically and we precisely delimit the range of the gradients for which it occurs. Our computer simulations closely match those findings. Altogether, our results indicate that subjecting a simple population structure to natural environmental conditions can produce strong counterintuitive effects.

Data availability

The data generated in this study have been deposited in the Figshare database under accession code https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29271674.

Code availability

The related computer code has been deposited in the Figshare database under the accession code https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29271674.

References

  1. Nowak, M. A. Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring The Equations of Life (Harvard University Press, 2006).

  2. Broom, M. & Rychtár, J. Game-Theoretical Models in Biology (CRC Press, 2014).

  3. Ewens, W. J. Mathematical Population Genetics: Theoretical Introduction, Vol. 27 (Springer, 2004).

  4. Traulsen, A. & Hauert, C. Stochastic evolutionary game dynamics. Rev. Nonlinear Dyn. Complex. 2, 25–61 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lieberman, E., Hauert, C. & Nowak, M. A. Evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Nature 433, 312–316 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Allen, B. et al. Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure. Nature 544, 227–230 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kimura, M. Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory: Selected Papers (University of Chicago Press, 1994).

  8. Maruyama, T. On the fixation probability of mutant genes in a subdivided population. Genet. Res. 15, 221–225 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Allen, B. et al. The molecular clock of neutral evolution can be accelerated or slowed by asymmetric spatial structure. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004108 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Durrett, R. & Levin, S. The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theor. Popul. Biol. 46, 363–394 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maruyama, T. A Markov process of gene frequency change in a geographically structured population. Genetics 76, 367–77 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Maruyama, T. A simple proof that certain quantities are independent of the geographical structure of population. Theor. Popul. Biol. 5, 148–54 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Komarova, N. Spatial stochastic models for cancer initiation and progression. Bull. Math. Biol. 68, 1573–1599 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hindersin, L. & Traulsen, A. Counterintuitive properties of the fixation time in network-structured populations. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140606 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hindersin, L. & Traulsen, A. Most undirected random graphs are amplifiers of selection for birth-death dynamics, but suppressors of selection for death-birth dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004437 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Broom, M., Rychtář, J. & Stadler, B. Evolutionary dynamics on graphs-the effect of graph structure and initial placement on mutant spread. J. Stat. Theory Pract. 5, 369–381 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Broom, M. & Rychtář, J. An analysis of the fixation probability of a mutant on special classes of non-directed graphs. Proc. R. Soc. A 464, 2609–2627 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Monk, T., Green, P. & Paulin, M. Martingales and fixation probabilities of evolutionary graphs. Proc. R. Soc. A 470, 20130730 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Houchmandzadeh, B. & Vallade, M. Alternative to the diffusion equation in population genetics. Phys. Rev. E 82, 051913 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Houchmandzadeh, B. & Vallade, M. The fixation probability of a beneficial mutation in a geographically structured population. N. J. Phys. 13, 073020 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kaveh, K., Komarova, N. L. & Kohandel, M. The duality of spatial death–birth and birth–death processes and limitations of the isothermal theorem. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140465 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tkadlec, J., Pavlogiannis, A., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Population structure determines the tradeoff between fixation probability and fixation time. Commun. Biol. 2, 138 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pavlogiannis, A., Tkadlec, J., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Amplification on undirected population structures: comets beat stars. Sci. Rep. 7, 82 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlogiannis, A., Tkadlec, J., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Construction of arbitrarily strong amplifiers of natural selection using evolutionary graph theory. Commun. Biol. 1, 71 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Adlam, B., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Amplifiers of selection. Proc. R. Soc. A 471, 20150114 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Svoboda, J., Joshi, S., Tkadlec, J. & Chatterjee, K. Amplifiers of selection for the Moran process with both birth-death and death-birth updating. PLOS Comput. Biol. 20, e1012008 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Levins, R. Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. i. the fitness set and adaptive function. Am. Nat. 96, 361–373 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Whitlock, M. C. & Gomulkiewicz, R. Probability of fixation in a heterogeneous environment. Genetics 171, 1407–1417 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gavrilets, S. & Gibson, N. Fixation probabilities in a spatially heterogeneous environment. Popul. Ecol. 44, 51–58 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vuilleumier, S., Goudet, J. & Perrin, N. Evolution in heterogeneous populations: from migration models to fixation probabilities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 78, 250–258 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schreiber, S. J. & Lloyd-Smith, J. O. Invasion dynamics in spatially heterogeneous environments. Am. Nat. 174, 490–505 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaveh, K., McAvoy, A. & Nowak, M. A. Environmental fitness heterogeneity in the Moran process. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181661 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kaveh, K., McAvoy, A., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. The Moran process on 2-chromatic graphs. PLOS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008402 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Maciejewski, W. & Puleo, G. J. Environmental evolutionary graph theory. J. Theor. Biol. 360, 117–128 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Giaimo, S., Arranz, J. & Traulsen, A. Invasion and effective size of graph-structured populations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006559 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mahdipour-Shirayeh, A., Darooneh, A., Long, A., Komarova, N. & Kohandel, M. Genotype by random environmental interactions gives an advantage to non-favored minor alleles. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–8 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Farhang-Sardroodi, S., Darooneh, A. H., Nikbakht, M., Komarova, N. L. & Kohandel, M. The effect of spatial randomness on the average fixation time of mutants. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005864 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Farhang-Sardroodi, S., Darooneh, A. H., Kohandel, M. & Komarova, N. L. Environmental spatial and temporal variability and its role in non-favoured mutant dynamics. J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20180781 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Masuda, N., Gibert, N. & Redner, S. Heterogeneous voter models. Phys. Rev. E 82, 010103 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hauser, O. P., Traulsen, A. & Nowak, M. A. Heterogeneity in background fitness acts as a suppressor of selection. J. Theor. Biol. 343, 178–185 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nemati, H., Kaveh, K. & Ejtehadi, M. R. Counterintuitive properties of evolutionary measures: a stochastic process study in cyclic population structures with periodic environments. J. Theor. Biol. 564, 111436 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Brewster, D. A. et al. Maintaining diversity in structured populations. PNAS Nexus 4, pgaf252 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gillespie, J. H. Natural selection for variances in offspring numbers: a new evolutionary principle. Am. Nat. 111, 1010–1014 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Svoboda, J., Tkadlec, J., Kaveh, K. & Chatterjee, K. Coexistence times in the Moran process with environmental heterogeneity. Proc. R. Soc. A 479, 20220685 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stevanovic, M. et al. Nutrient gradients mediate complex colony-level antibiotic responses in structured microbial populations. Front. Microbiol. 13, 740259 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Baym, M. et al. Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes. Science 353, 1147–1151 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Altay, G. et al. Modeling biochemical gradients in vitro to control cell compartmentalization in a microengineered 3d model of the intestinal epithelium. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 11, 2201172 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Minchinton, A. I. & Tannock, I. F. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 583–592 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Müller, M., dela Pena, A. & Derendorf, H. Issues in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-infective agents: distribution in tissue. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48, 1441 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wu, A., Liao, D., Tlsty, T. D., Sturm, J. C. & Austin, R. H. Game theory in the death galaxy: interaction of cancer and stromal cells in tumour microenvironment. Interface Focus 4, 20140028 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Andersson, D. I. & Hughes, D. Antibiotic resistance and its cost: is it possible to reverse resistance? Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 260–271 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Melnyk, A. H., Wong, A. & Kassen, R. The fitness costs of antibiotic resistance mutations. Evolut. Appl. 8, 273–283 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wu, A. et al. Cell motility and drug gradients in the emergence of resistance to chemotherapy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16103–16108 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lambert, G. & Kussell, E. Memory and fitness optimization of bacteria under fluctuating environments. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004556 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hermsen, R., Deris, J. B. & Hwa, T. On the rapidity of antibiotic resistance evolution facilitated by a concentration gradient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10775–10780 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Greulich, P., Waclaw, B. & Allen, R. J. Mutational pathway determines whether drug gradients accelerate evolution of drug-resistant cells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 088101 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kepler, T. B. & Perelson, A. S. Drug concentration heterogeneity facilitates the evolution of drug resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 11514–11519 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Moreno-Gamez, S. et al. Imperfect drug penetration leads to spatial monotherapy and rapid evolution of multi-drug resistance. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/013003 (2014).

  59. Fu, F., Nowak, M. A. & Bonhoeffer, S. Spatial Heterogeneity in Drug Concentrations Can Facilitate the Emergence of Resistance to Cancer Therapy. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004142 (2015).

  60. Moran, P. A. P. Random processes in genetics. In Mathematical Proc. Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 54, 60–71 (Cambridge University Press, 1958).

  61. Hindersin, L., Wu, B., Traulsen, A. & García, J. Computation and simulation of evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations. Sci. Rep. 9, 6946 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.S. and K.C. were supported by the European Research Council (ERC) CoG 863818 (ForM-SMArt) and Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 10.55776/COE12. J.T. was supported by GAČR grant 25-17377S and by Charles Univ. projects UNCE 24/SCI/008 and PRIMUS 24/SCI/012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: H.N., K.K., and K.C. Investigation: J.S., H.N., J.T., K.K., and K.C. Visualization: H.N., J.T., and K.K. Formal analysis: J.S., J.T. Project administration: K.K., K.C. Writing–original draft: J.S., H.N., J.T., K.K., and K.C. Writing–editing: J.S., H.N., J.T., K.K., and K.C.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Krishnendu Chatterjee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Transparent Peer Review file (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svoboda, J., Nemati, H., Tkadlec, J. et al. The effect of the fitness gradient on fixation probability.
Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71777-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71777-2


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Balancing biofouling control in membrane distillation by “shock” chlorination

A parasite-inclusive food web for the California rocky intertidal zone

Back to Top