ArticleGenetics2016
A Statistical Guide to the Design of Deep Mutational Scanning Experiments.
Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- The shape of fitness functions and the distribution of mutational effect sizes jointly limit adaptation by regulatory mutations.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Deep Mutational Scanning in Immunology: Techniques and Applications.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Estimating the Distribution of Fitness Effects in Aye-Ayes (Daubentonia madagascariensis), Accounting for Population History as Well as Mutation and Recombination Rate Heterogeneity.American journal of primatology · 2025Article
- Epitope mapping via in vitro deep mutational scanning methods and its applications.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2025Review
- popDMS infers mutation effects from deep mutational scanning data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- popDMS infers mutation effects from deep mutational scanning data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Optimal trade-off control in machine learning-based library design, with application to adeno-associated virus (AAV) for gene therapy.Science advances · 2024Article
- ACIDES: on-line monitoring of forward genetic screens for protein engineering.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Deep mutational scanning of proteins in mammalian cells.Cell reports methods · 2023Review
- MBE: model-based enrichment estimation and prediction for differential sequencing data.Genome biology · 2023Article
- Deep mutational scanning: A versatile tool in systematically mapping genotypes to phenotypes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Intragenic compensation through the lens of deep mutational scanning.Biophysical reviews · 2022Review
- Facilitating Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering with Smart Library Design and Massively Parallel Assays.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Quantifying the Evolutionary Constraints and Potential of Hepatitis C Virus NS5A Protein.mSystems · 2021Article
- The Adaptive Potential of the Middle Domain of Yeast Hsp90.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- DiMSum: an error model and pipeline for analyzing deep mutational scanning data and diagnosing common experimental pathologies.Genome biology · 2020Article
- Article
- Identification and Characterization of Mediators of Fluconazole Tolerance inFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- MaveDB: an open-source platform to distribute and interpret data from multiplexed assays of variant effect.Genome biology · 2019Article
- Recent insights into the genotype-phenotype relationship from massively parallel genetic assays.Evolutionary applications · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The characterization of the distribution of mutational effects is a key goal in evolutionary biology. Recently developed deep-sequencing approaches allow for accurate and simultaneous estimation of the fitness effects of hundreds of engineered mutations by monitoring their relative abundance across time points in a single bulk competition. Naturally, the achievable resolution of the estimated fitness effects depends on the specific experimental setup, the organism and type of mutations studied, and the sequencing technology utilized, among other factors. By means of analytical approximations and simulations, we provide guidelines for optimizing time-sampled deep-sequencing bulk competition experiments, focusing on the number of mutants, the sequencing depth, and the number of sampled time points. Our analytical results show that sampling more time points together with extending the duration of the experiment improves the achievable precision disproportionately compared with increasing the sequencing depth or reducing the number of competing mutants. Even if the duration of the experiment is fixed, sampling more time points and clustering these at the beginning and the end of the experiment increase experimental power and allow for efficient and precise assessment of the entire range of selection coefficients. Finally, we provide a formula for calculating the 95%-confidence interval for the measurement error estimate, which we implement as an interactive web tool. This allows for quantification of the maximum expected a priori precision of the experimental setup, as well as for a statistical threshold for determining deviations from neutrality for specific selection coefficient estimates.
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.