Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19439516›Full record

ArticleGenome research2009

Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines.

Peter D Keightley, Urmi Trivedi, Marian Thomson, Fiona Oliver, Sujai Kumar, Mark L Blaxter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 231 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
231citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

231 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The mutation landscape ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Peter D KeightleyInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom. Keightley.genomeres2009@gmail.com
Urmi Trivedi
Marian Thomson
Fiona Oliver
Sujai Kumar
Mark L Blaxter

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We inferred the rate and properties of new spontaneous mutations in Drosophila melanogaster by carrying out whole-genome shotgun sequencing-by-synthesis of three mutation accumulation (MA) lines that had been maintained by close inbreeding for an average of 262 generations. We tested for the presence of new mutations by generating alignments of each MA line to the D. melanogaster reference genome sequence and then compared these alignments base by base. We determined empirically that at least five reads at a site within each line are required for accurate single nucleotide mutation calling. We mapped a total of 174 single-nucleotide mutations, giving a single nucleotide mutation rate of 3.5 x 10(-9) per site per generation. There were no false positives in a random sample of 40 of these mutations checked by Sanger sequencing. Variation in the numbers of mutations among the MA lines was small and nonsignificant. Numbers of transition and transversion mutations were 86 and 88, respectively, implying that transition mutation rate is close to 2x the transversion rate. We observed 1.5x as many G or C --> A or T as A or T --> G or C mutations, implying that the G or C --> A or T mutation rate is close to 2x the A or T --> G or C mutation rate. The base composition of the genome is therefore not at an equilibrium determined solely by mutation. The predicted G + C content at mutational equilibrium (33%) is similar to that observed in transposable element remnants. Nearest-neighbor mutational context dependencies are nonsignificant, suggesting that this is a weak phenomenon in Drosophila. We also saw nonsignificant differences in the mutation rate between transcribed and untranscribed regions, implying that any transcription-coupled repair process is weak. Of seven short indel mutations confirmed, six were deletions, consistent with the deletion bias that is thought to exist in Drosophila.

Indexed as

Genome, InsectAnimalsDNA, MitochondrialDrosophila melanogasterMutationDNA, Mitochondrial

Identifiers

PMID19439516
PMCPMC2704435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.