ArticleGenetics2006
Low impact of germline transposition on the rate of mildly deleterious mutation in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Article in Genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term experimental evolution reveals purifying selection on piRNA-mediated control of transposable element expression.BMC biology · 2020Article
- Degradation of the Repetitive Genomic Landscape in a Close Relative of Caenorhabditis elegans.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Hsp90 and Physiological Stress Are Linked to Autonomous Transposon Mobility and Heritable Genetic Change in Nematodes.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- The mutational structure of metabolism in Caenorhabditis elegans.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2016Article
- Invariance (?) of mutational parameters for relative fitness over 400 generations of mutation accumulation in Caenorhabditis elegans.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2012Article
- No evidence of elevated germline mutation accumulation under oxidative stress in Caenorhabditis elegans.Genetics · 2011Article
- Rapid decline in fitness of mutation accumulation lines of gonochoristic (outcrossing) Caenorhabditis nematodes.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2010Article
- Genetic (Co)variation for life span in rhabditid nematodes: role of mutation, selection, and history.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2009Article
- Comparing mutational and standing genetic variability for fitness and size in Caenorhabditis briggsae and C. elegans.Genetics · 2009Article
- Spontaneous mutational and standing genetic (co)variation at dinucleotide microsatellites in Caenorhabditis briggsae and Caenorhabditis elegans.Molecular biology and evolution · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little is known about the role of transposable element (TE) insertion in the production of mutations with mild effects on fitness, the class of mutations thought to be central to the evolution of many basic features of natural populations. We propagated mutation-accumulation (MA) lines of two RNAi-deficient strains of Caenorhabditis elegans that exhibit germline transposition. We show here that the impact of TE activity was to raise the level of mildly deleterious mutation by 2- to 8.5-fold, as estimated from fecundity, longevity, and body length measurements, compared to that observed in a parallel MA experiment with a control strain characterized by a lack of germline transposition. Despite this increase, the rate of mildly deleterious mutation was between one and two orders of magnitude lower than the rate of TE accumulation, which was approximately two new insertions per genome per generation. This study suggests that high rates of TE activity do not necessarily translate into high rates of detectable nonlethal mutation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.