Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20838593›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2010

Evidence of selection upon genomic GC-content in bacteria.

Falk Hildebrand, Axel Meyer, Adam Eyre-Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 234 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
234citing 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

234 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Journal of bacteriology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. A pleuromutilin-ciprofloxacin hybrid exhibits potent activity againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The GC% landscape of the Nucleocytoviricota.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

174 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

3 authors.

Falk HildebrandCentre for the Study of Evolution and School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Axel Meyer
Adam Eyre-Walker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomic GC-content of bacteria varies dramatically, from less than 20% to more than 70%. This variation is generally ascribed to differences in the pattern of mutation between bacteria. Here we test this hypothesis by examining patterns of synonymous polymorphism using datasets from 149 bacterial species. We find a large excess of synonymous GC→AT mutations over AT→GC mutations segregating in all but the most AT-rich bacteria, across a broad range of phylogenetically diverse species. We show that the excess of GC→AT mutations is inconsistent with mutation bias, since it would imply that most GC-rich bacteria are declining in GC-content; such a pattern would be unsustainable. We also show that the patterns are probably not due to translational selection or biased gene conversion, because optimal codons tend to be AT-rich, and the excess of GC→AT SNPs is observed in datasets with no evidence of recombination. We therefore conclude that there is selection to increase synonymous GC-content in many species. Since synonymous GC-content is highly correlated to genomic GC-content, we further conclude that there is selection on genomic base composition in many bacteria.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticBacteriaBase CompositionBiasGenome, BacterialModels, GeneticMutationPolymorphism, Single NucleotideProtein Biosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID20838593
PMCPMC2936529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.