Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24166031›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2013

Genome dynamics during experimental evolution.

Jeffrey E Barrick, Richard E Lenski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 334 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
334citing 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

334 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  2. The historical domestication of aProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Adaptive Laboratory Evolution inMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. High-quality genome ofPlant diversity · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Plasmid mutation rates scale with copy number.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

274 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

2 authors.

Jeffrey E Barrick1] Department of Molecular Biosciences, Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. [2] BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
Richard E Lenski

Funding

Identifying Mutations that Promote Microbial EvolvabilityR00GM087550 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN · 2011 to 2013
$724k
NIGMS NIH HHS R00 GM087550NIGMS NIH HHS R00‑GM087550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolutionary changes in organismal traits may occur either gradually or suddenly. However, until recently, there has been little direct information about how phenotypic changes are related to the rate and the nature of the underlying genotypic changes. Technological advances that facilitate whole-genome and whole-population sequencing, coupled with experiments that 'watch' evolution in action, have brought new precision to and insights into studies of mutation rates and genome evolution. In this Review, we discuss the evolutionary forces and ecological processes that govern genome dynamics in various laboratory systems in the context of relevant population genetic theory, and we relate these findings to evolution in natural populations.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomeAdaptation, BiologicalAnimalsBacteriaGene-Environment InteractionHumansMetagenomeModels, GeneticMutationPhenotypeSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID24166031
PMCPMC4239992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.