Controlling the speed and trajectory of evolution with counterdiabatic driving (original) (raw)

Data availability

The raw numerical data for the figures in the main text and Supplementary Information, as well as the code to generate the figures, are available via GitHub at https://github.com/Peyara/Evolution-Counterdiabatic-Driving. Source Data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code to perform the numerical simulations and the specific driving protocols is available via GitHub at https://github.com/Peyara/Evolution-Counterdiabatic-Driving.

References

1. Mira, P. M. et al. Rational design of antibiotic treatment plans: a treatment strategy for managing evolution and reversing resistance. PloS ONE 10, e0122283 (2015).
   Article MATH Google Scholar
2. Ogbunugafor, C. B., Wylie, C. S., Diakite, I., Weinreich, D. M. & Hartl, D. L. Adaptive landscape by environment interactions dictate evolutionary dynamics in models of drug resistance. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004710 (2016).
   Article ADS Google Scholar
3. Brown, K. M. et al. Compensatory mutations restore fitness during the evolution of dihydrofolate reductase. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 2682–2690 (2010).
   Article Google Scholar
4. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance (WHO, 2014).
5. Holohan, C., Van Schaeybroeck, S., Longley, D. B. & Johnston, P. G. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm. Nat. Rev. Cancer 13, 714–726 (2013).
   Article Google Scholar
6. Nichol, D. et al. Steering evolution with sequential therapy to prevent the emergence of bacterial antibiotic resistance. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004493 (2015).
   Article Google Scholar
7. Maltas, J. & Wood, K. B. Pervasive and diverse collateral sensitivity profiles inform optimal strategies to limit antibiotic resistance. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000515 (2019).
   Article Google Scholar
8. Bason, M. G. et al. High-fidelity quantum driving. Nat. Phys. 8, 147–152 (2012).
   Article Google Scholar
9. Zhou, B. B. et al. Accelerated quantum control using superadiabatic dynamics in a solid-state lambda system. Nat. Phys. 13, 330–334 (2017).
   Article Google Scholar
10. Walther, A. et al. Controlling fast transport of cold trapped ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080501 (2012).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
11. Farhi, E. et al. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-complete problem. Science 292, 472–475 (2001).
    Article ADS MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
12. Torrontegui, E. et al. Shortcuts to adiabaticity. Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys 62, 117–169 (2013).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
13. Deffner, S., Jarzynski, C. & del Campo, A. Classical and quantum shortcuts to adiabaticity for scale-invariant driving. Phys. Rev. X 4, 021013 (2014).
    Google Scholar
14. Deffner, S. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: suppression of pair production in driven Dirac dynamics. New J. Phys. 18, 012001 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
15. Acconcia, T. V., Bonança, M. V. S. & Deffner, S. Shortcuts to adiabaticity from linear response theory. Phys. Rev. E 92, 042148 (2015).
    Article ADS MathSciNet Google Scholar
16. Campbell, S. & Deffner, S. Trade-off between speed and cost in shortcuts to adiabaticity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100601 (2017).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
17. Guéry-Odelin, D. et al. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: concepts, methods and applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
18. Demirplak, M. & Rice, S. A. Adiabatic population transfer with control fields. J. Phys. Chem. A 107, 9937–9945 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
19. Demirplak, M. & Rice, S. A. Assisted adiabatic passage revisited. J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 6838–6844 (2005).
    Article Google Scholar
20. Berry, M. V. Transitionless quantum driving. J. Phys. A Math. Theory 42, 365303 (2009).
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
21. Patra, A. & Jarzynski, C. Shortcuts to adiabaticity using flow fields. New J. Phys. 19, 125009 (2017).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
22. Li, G., Quan, H. & Tu, Z. Shortcuts to isothermality and nonequilibrium work relations. Phys. Rev. E 96, 012144 (2017).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
23. Martínez, I. A., Petrosyan, A., Guéry-Odelin, D., Trizac, E. & Ciliberto, S. Engineered swift equilibration of a Brownian particle. Nat. Phys. 12, 843–846 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
24. Le Cunuder, A. et al. Fast equilibrium switch of a micro mechanical oscillator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 113502 (2016).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
25. Schmiedl, T. & Seifert, U. Optimal finite-time processes in stochastic thermodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108301 (2007).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
26. Aurell, E., Gawędzki, K., Mejía-Monasterio, C., Mohayaee, R. & Muratore-Ginanneschi, P. Refined second law of thermodynamics for fast random processes. J. Stat. Phys. 147, 487–505 (2012).
    Article ADS MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
27. Wright, S. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In Proc. Sixth Int. Congress on Genetics Vol. 1, 356–366 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1932).
28. Mustonen, V. & Lässig, M. Fitness flux and ubiquity of adaptive evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4248–4253 (2010).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
29. Grabert, H., Hänggi, P. & Talkner, P. Is quantum mechanics equivalent to a classical stochastic process? Phys. Rev. A 19, 2440–2445 (1979).
    Article ADS MathSciNet Google Scholar
30. Van Kampen, N. G. Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier, 1992).
31. Risken, H. The Fokker-Planck Equation (Springer, 1996).
32. Born, M. & Fock, V. Beweis des Adiabatensatzes. Z. Phys. 51, 165–180 (1928).
    Article ADS MATH Google Scholar
33. Nichol, D. et al. Antibiotic collateral sensitivity is contingent on the repeatability of evolution. Nat. Commun. 10, 334 (2019).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
34. Li, Y., Petrov, D. A. & Sherlock, G. Single nucleotide mapping of trait space reveals Pareto fronts that constrain adaptation. Nat. Ecol. Evol 3, 1539–1551 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
35. Vaikuntanathan, S. & Jarzynski, C. Dissipation and lag in irreversible processes. Europhys. Lett. 87, 60005 (2009).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
36. Gillespie, J. H. A simple stochastic gene substitution model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 23, 202–215 (1983).
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
37. Gerrish, P. J. & Lenski, R. E. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102, 127 (1998).
    Article Google Scholar
38. Desai, M. M. & Fisher, D. S. Beneficial mutation–selection balance and the effect of linkage on positive selection. Genetics 176, 1759–1798 (2007).
    Article Google Scholar
39. Sniegowski, P. D. & Gerrish, P. J. Beneficial mutations and the dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 1255–1263 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
40. Martens, E. A. & Hallatschek, O. Interfering waves of adaptation promote spatial mixing. Genetics 189, 1045–1060 (2011).
    Article Google Scholar
41. Magdanova, L. & Golyasnaya, N. Heterogeneity as an adaptive trait of microbial populations. Microbiology 82, 1–10 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
42. Krishnan, N. & Scott, J. G. Range expansion shifts clonal interference patterns in evolving populations. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/794867v2 (2019).
43. Sella, G. & Hirsh, A. E. The application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9541–9546 (2005).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
44. Kullback, S. & Leibler, R. A. On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79–86 (1951).
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
45. Kaznatcheev, A. Computational complexity as an ultimate constraint on evolution. Genetics 212, 245–265 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
46. Baxter, G. J., Blythe, R. A. & McKane, A. J. Exact solution of the multi-allelic diffusion model. Math. Biosci. 209, 124–170 (2007).
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
47. Kimura, M. Stochastic processes and distribution of gene frequencies under natural selection. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 20, 33–53 (1955).
    Article Google Scholar
48. Gillespie, D. T. The multivariate Langevin and Fokker–Planck equations. Am. J. Phys. 64, 1246–1257 (1996).
    Article ADS MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
49. Sahoo, S. Inverse vector operators. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf (2008).
50. Gillespie, D. T. The chemical Langevin equation. J. Chem. Phys. 113, 297–306 (2000).
    Article ADS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H. thanks the US National Science Foundation for support through a CAREER grant (BIO/MCB 1651560). J.G.S. thanks the NIH Loan Repayment Program for their generous support and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology (NIH K12CA076917). S.D. acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation under grant no. CHE-1648973. E.I. acknowledges support from Labex CelTisPhyBio (ANR-11-LABX-0038, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02).

Author information

Author notes

1. These authors contributed equally: Shamreen Iram, Emily Dolson, Joshua Chiel.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
   Shamreen Iram, Joshua Chiel, Julia Pelesko, Özenç Güngör, Benjamin Kuznets-Speck, Jacob G. Scott & Michael Hinczewski
2. Translational Hematology Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
   Emily Dolson, Julia Pelesko, Nikhil Krishnan & Jacob G. Scott
3. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
   Nikhil Krishnan & Jacob G. Scott
4. Biophysics Graduate Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
   Benjamin Kuznets-Speck
5. Department of Physics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
   Sebastian Deffner
6. Physico-Chimie Curie UMR 168, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France
   Efe Ilker

Authors

1. Shamreen Iram
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
2. Emily Dolson
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
3. Joshua Chiel
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
4. Julia Pelesko
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
5. Nikhil Krishnan
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
6. Özenç Güngör
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
7. Benjamin Kuznets-Speck
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
8. Sebastian Deffner
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
9. Efe Ilker
   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
10. Jacob G. Scott
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
11. Michael Hinczewski
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.I. and J.P. performed mathematical analysis, wrote the two-allele code, peformed simulations, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. J.C., E.I., O.G., B.K.-S. performed mathematical analysis, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. E.D. and N.K. wrote the multidimensional ABM code, performed the simulations, analysed data and wrote the manuscript. J.G.S. analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. M.H. performed the mathematical analysis and simulations, wrote code, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. S.D. wrote the manuscript, and S.D., E.I., J.G.S. and M.H. contributed to developing the overall theoretical framework.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toJacob G. Scott or Michael Hinczewski.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Physics thanks Ken Funo and Daniel Weinreich for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 CD driving for an altered 16-genotype pyrimethamine seascape.

This is the same seascape as in main text Fig. 3, using the experimental data of Ref. 2, except that genotype 0110 has been modified to have a 5% larger base growth rate under no drug conditions. a,b, Sample simulation trajectories (solid lines) versus IE expectation (dashed lines) for the fraction of 4 representative genotypes without a and with b CD driving. The CD driving is implemented approximately through the drug dosage protocol (green curve) shown in panel c with cutoff 10−2 M. The original protocol (blue curve) is shown for comparison. d, Kullback–Leibler divergence between actual and IE distributions versus time, with and without CD driving.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 CD driving for a 16-genotype cycloguanil seascape.

This is the same 16-genotype system as in the examples of main text Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 1, except using the antimalarial drug cycloguanil instead of pyrimethamine. The seascape is based on the experimental data of Ref. 2, without any modifications. a,b, Sample simulation trajectories (solid lines) versus IE expectation (dashed lines) for the fraction of 4 representative genotypes without a and with b CD driving. The CD driving is implemented approximately through the drug dosage protocol (green curve) shown in panel c. The original protocol (blue curve) is shown for comparison. d, Kullback–Leibler divergence between actual and IE distributions versus time, with and without CD driving.

Source data

Supplementary information

Source data

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iram, S., Dolson, E., Chiel, J. et al. Controlling the speed and trajectory of evolution with counterdiabatic driving.Nat. Phys. 17, 135–142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0989-3

Download citation

• Received: 05 February 2020
• Accepted: 01 July 2020
• Published: 24 August 2020
• Issue Date: January 2021
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0989-3