Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26064538›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2014

Evolution: are the monkeys' typewriters rigged?

Michael R Garvin, Anthony J Gharrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Michael R GarvinFisheries Division , School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks , 17101 Point Lena Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801, USA.
Anthony J GharrettFisheries Division , School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks , 17101 Point Lena Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolution is presumed to proceed by random mutations, which increase an individual's fitness. Increased fitness produces a higher survival rate for those individuals within populations and drives the variants to fixation over large timescales to produce new species. We recently identified positively selected sites in mitochondrial complex I in numerous, diverse taxa. In one taxon, a simple sequence repeat (SSR) encompassed the positively selected sites. We hypothesized a model in which: (i) slip-strand mis-pairing during replication due to the SSR increases the mutation rate at these sites, and (ii) a functional constraint at the protein level maintains the SSR and therefore a higher mutation rate at this site over large time scales to drive evolution. We tested this model by identifying SSRs in a mitochondrial-encoded protein in species from our previous work and determined that nearly all of the positively selected sites encompass an SSR. Furthermore, we show that our proposed model accounts for most of the mutations at neutral sites but it is probably the predominant mechanism at positively selected sites. This suggests that evolution does not proceed by simple random processes but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA.

Indexed as

codonevolutionmicrosatellitemolecular geneticsmutation

Identifiers

PMID26064538
PMCPMC4448893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.