ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2012
Contrasting mutation rates from specific-locus and long-term mutation-accumulation procedures.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Temperature responses of mutation rate and mutational spectrum in an Escherichia coli strain and the correlation with metabolic rate.BMC evolutionary biology · 2018Article
- Article
- Genomic Diversity and Evolution of the Fish PathogenFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Article
- Stress-induced mutation rates show a sigmoidal and saturable increase due to the RpoS sigma factor in Escherichia coli.Genetics · 2014Article
- The three faces of riboviral spontaneous mutation: spectrum, mode of genome replication, and mutation rate.PLoS genetics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Until recently, the two predominant ways to estimate mutation rates were the specific-locus method and the mutation-accumulation (Bateman-Mukai) method. Both involve seeding a number of parallel lines from a small, genetically uniform population, growing as long as is feasible but not so long as to allow selection to perturb mutant frequencies, and sometimes using extreme bottlenecks to facilitate the retention of deleterious mutations. In the specific-locus method, mutations are selected according to their specific phenotypes and are confirmed by sequencing. In older versions of the mutation-accumulation method, the increase in variance of a quantitative fitness trait is measured and converted into a mutation rate. More recently, a variation on the mutation-accumulation method has become possible based on phenotype-blind genomic sequencing, which might (or might not) provide improved sampling breadth, usually at the expense of sample size. In a recent study, genomic sequencing was applied to Escherichia coli lines propagated for 40,000 generations and passaged daily via 5,000,000 cells. To mitigate the impact of selection, the only targets employed for rate calculations were putatively neutral synonymous mutations. The mutation rate estimate was about 6-fold lower than obtained previously with a robust specific-locus method. Here I argue that purifying selection acting to shape the strong codon preferences of E. coli is the probable cause of the lower estimate, rather than, for instance, a lower mutation rate in nature than in the laboratory.
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.