Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598319›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2019

Flanking heterozygosity influences the relative probability of different base substitutions in humans.

William Amos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pan-African model explainsbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author.

William AmosDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0971-9914

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding when, where and which mutations are mostly likely to occur impacts many areas of evolutionary biology, from genetic diseases to phylogenetic reconstruction. Africans and non-African humans differ in the mutability of different triplet base combinations. Africans and non-Africans also differ in mutation rate, possibly because heterozygosity is mutagenic, such that diversity lost when humans expanded out of Africa also lowered the mutation rate. I show that these phenomena are linked: as flanking heterozygosity increases, some triplets become progressively more mutable while others become less so. Africans and non-African show near-identical patterns of dependence on heterozygosity. Thus, the striking differences in triplet mutation frequency between Africans and non-Africans, at least in part, seem to be an emergent property, driven by the way changes in heterozygosity 'out of Africa' have differentially impacted the mutability of different triplets. As heterozygosity decreased, the mutation spectrum outside Africa became enriched for triplet mutations that are favoured by low heterozygosity while those favoured by high heterozygosity became relatively rarer.

Indexed as

heterozygosityhuman geneticsmutation ratesequence context

Identifiers

PMID31598319
PMCPMC6774961

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.