Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23542207›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2013

An ABC method for estimating the rate and distribution of effects of beneficial mutations.

Jorge A Moura de Sousa, Paulo R A Campos, Isabel Gordo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Effects of new mutations on fitness: insights from models and data.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2014
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Jorge A Moura de SousaInstituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande, Oeiras, Portugal.
Paulo R A Campos
Isabel Gordo

Funding

European Research Council 260421
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic FitnessMutation RateAdaptation, PhysiologicalBayes TheoremModels, GeneticModels, TheoreticalMutationProbabilitySelection, Geneticdistribution of fitness effectsexperimental evolutionmutation rateparameter estimation

Identifiers

PMID23542207
PMCPMC3673657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.