Optimization evolutionary

Numerous modifications have been made to the original simplex method. One of the more important modifications was made by Nelder and Mead l who modified the method to allow expansions in directions which are favorable and contractions in directions which are unfavorable. This modification increased the rate at which the optimum is found. Other important modifications were made by Brissey l who describes a high speed algorithm, and Keefert who describes a high speed algorithm and methods dealing with bounds on the independent variables. 

Additional modifications were reported by Nelson,f l Bruley,l l Deming, and Ryan.t For reviews on the simplex methods see papers by Deming et 

EVOP does have its limitations. First, because of its iterative nature, it is a slow process which can require many steps. Secondly, it provides only limited information about the effects of the variables. Upon completion ofthe EVOP process only a limited region of the reaction surface will have been explored and therefore, minimal information will be available about the effects of the variables and their interactions. This information is necessary to determine the ranges within which the variables must be controlled to insure optimal operation. Further, EVOP approaches the nearest optimum. It is unknown whether this optimum is a local optimum or the optimum for the entire process 

Despite the limitations, EVOP is an extremely useful optimization technique. EVOP is robust, can handle many variables at the same time, and will always lead to an optimum. Also, because of its iterative nature, little needs to be known about the system before beginning the process. Most important, however, is the fact that it can be useful in plant optimization where the cost of running experiments using conditions that result in low yields or unusable product cannot be tolerated. In theory, the process improves at each step of the optimization scheme, making it ideal for a production situation. For application of EVOP to plant scale operations, see Refs. 12-14. 

---

SS So, M Karplus. Evolutionary optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationship An application of genetic neural networks. J Med Chem 39 1521-1530, 1996. 

Rastogi, A., 1991, Evolutionary Optimization of Batch Proce.s.ses using Tendency Models , 1991, Ph. D. Dissertation, Lehigh University (Bethlehem, USA). 

Nguyen AW, Daugherty PS (2005) Evolutionary optimization of fluorescent proteins for intracellular FRET. Nat Biotechnol 23 355-360... 

Host defense peptide hydrophobicity (H) is defined as the proportion of hydrophobic amino acids within a peptide. Typically, these peptides are comprised of >30% hydrophobic residues and this governs the ability of a host defense peptide to partition into the lipid bilayer, an essential requirement for antimicrobial peptide-membrane interactions. Typically, the hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids of natural peptides are segregated to create specific regions or domains that allow for optimal interaction with microbial membranes. This likely represents evolutionary optimization to maximize the selectivity of these defense molecules. It has been established that increasing antimicrobial peptide hydrophobicity above a specific threshold correlates... 

Schuster, P. and Swetina, J. (1988). Stationary mutant distributions and evolutionary optimization. Bull. Math. Biol., 50, 636-60. 

Burbaum JJ, Raines RT, Albery WJ et al. Evolutionary optimization of the catalytic effectiveness of an enzyme. Biochemistry 1989 28 9293. 

Fig. 1. Partitioning of the complex phenomenon of evolution into three simpler processes. Population dynamics is tantamount to population genetics of asexually reproducing haploid populations or chemical kinetics of polynucleotide replication. Population support dynamics describes the migration of populations in genotype or sequence space during the course of evolutionary optimization. Genotype-phenotype mapping deals with the unfolding of a phenotype under the conditions and constraints provided by the environment. It represents the major source of complexity in evolution.

Fig. 4. The role of neutral networks in evolutionary optimization through adaptive walks and random drift. Adaptive walks allow to choose the next step arbitrarily from all directions where fitness is (locally) nondecreasing. Populations can bridge over narrow valleys with widths of a few point mutations. In the absence of selective neutrality (upper part) they are, however, unable to span larger Hamming distances and thus will approach only the next major fitness peak. Populations on rugged landscapes with extended neutral networks evolve along the network by a combination of adaptive walks and random drift at constant fitness (lower part). In this manner, populations bridge over large valleys and may eventually reach the global maximum ofthe fitness landscape.

Connectedness of a neutral network, implying that it consists of a single component, is important for evolutionary optimization. Populations usually cover a connected area in sequence space and they migrate (commonly) by the Hamming distance moved. Accordingly, if they are situated on a particular component of a neutral network, they can reach all sequences of this component. If the single component of the connected neutral network of a common structure spans all sequence space, a population on it can travel by random drift through whole sequence space. 

Now we can visualize evolutionary optimization as a hill-climbing process on a landscape that is given by an extremely simple potential [Eqn. (11.15)]. This potential, an ( — 1 )-dimensional hyperplane in n-dimensional space, seems to be a trivial function at first glance. It is linear and hence has no maxima, minima, or saddle points. However, as with every chemical reaction, evolutionary optimization is confined to the cone of nonnegative concentration restricts the physically accessible domain of relative concentrations to the unit simplex (xj > 0, X2 > 0,..., x > 0 Z x = 1). The unit simplex intersects the (n — 1 )-dimensional hyperplane of the potential on a simplex (a three-dimensional example is shown in Figure 4). Selection in the error-free scenario approaches a corner of this simplex, and the stationary state corresponds to a corner equilibrium, as such an optimum on the intersection of a restricted domain with a potential surface is commonly called in theoretical economics. 

To consider evolutionary optimization as a sequence of discrete selection steps requires some explanation. In fact, it is justified only on the basis of a hierarchical order of the rate terms, in which the off-diagonal terms usually are much smaller than the diagonal ones, decreasing in binomial or Poisson-ian progression with increasing Hamming distance between template and (erroneous) replica. As a consequence, the deterministic order around an... 

Evolutionary optimization then is not just a blind stochastic trial-and-error search for a better adapted mutant but rather follows an inherent logic ... 

---