ArticleGenome biology and evolution2013
An ABC method for estimating the rate and distribution of effects of beneficial mutations.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collective posterior inference from highly variable empirical replicates.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Neural networks enable efficient and accurate simulation-based inference of evolutionary parameters from adaptation dynamics.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Trade-Offs of Escherichia coli Adaptation to an Intracellular Lifestyle in Macrophages.PloS one · 2016Article
- Genomic investigations of evolutionary dynamics and epistasis in microbial evolution experiments.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2015Review
- Polyploidy can drive rapid adaptation in yeast.Nature · 2015Article
- Effects of new mutations on fitness: insights from models and data.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2014Review
- The fates of mutant lineages and the distribution of fitness effects of beneficial mutations in laboratory budding yeast populations.Genetics · 2014Article
- The first steps of adaptation of Escherichia coli to the gut are dominated by soft sweeps.PLoS genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Determining the distribution of adaptive mutations available to natural selection is a difficult task. These are rare events and most of them are lost by chance. Some theoretical works propose that the distribution of newly arising beneficial mutations should be close to exponential. Empirical data are scarce and do not always support an exponential distribution. Analysis of the dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations of microorganisms has revealed that these can be summarized by two effective parameters, the effective mutation rate, Ue, and the effective selection coefficient of a beneficial mutation, Se. Here, we show that these effective parameters will not always reflect the rate and mean effect of beneficial mutations, especially when the distribution of arising mutations has high variance, and the mutation rate is high. We propose a method to estimate the distribution of arising beneficial mutations, which is motivated by a common experimental setup. The method, which we call One Biallelic Marker Approximate Bayesian Computation, makes use of experimental data consisting of periodic measures of neutral marker frequencies and mean population fitness. Using simulations, we find that this method allows the discrimination of the shape of the distribution of arising mutations and that it provides reasonable estimates of their rates and mean effects in ranges of the parameter space that may be of biological relevance.
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.