ArticleGenetics2013
Statistical methods for analyzing Drosophila germline mutation rates.
Article in Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most studies of mutation rates implicitly assume that they remain constant throughout development of the germline. However, researchers recently used a novel statistical framework to reveal that mutation rates differ dramatically during sperm development in Drosophila melanogaster. Here a general framework is described for the inference of germline mutation patterns, generated from either mutation screening experiments or DNA sequence polymorphism data, that enables analysis of more than two mutations per family. The inference is made more rigorous and flexible by providing a better approximation of the probabilities of patterns of mutations and an improved coalescent algorithm within a single host with realistic assumptions. The properties of the inference framework, both the estimation and the hypothesis testing, were investigated by simulation. The refined inference framework is shown to provide (1) nearly unbiased maximum-likelihood estimates of mutation rates and (2) robust hypothesis testing using the standard asymptotic distribution of the likelihood-ratio tests. It is readily applicable to data sets in which multiple mutations in the same family are common.
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.