ArticleTrends in plant science2022
Who ever thought genetic mutations were random?
Article in Trends in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Amino Acid Properties, Substitution Rates, and the Nearly Neutral Theory.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent study of de novo mutations in arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), Monroe et al. found a lower mutation frequency inside gene bodies and certain essential genes, shattering the long-standing idea that mutations are entirely random across the genome. Here I highlight the molecular nonrandomness of mutations and the type of gene affected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35307269What 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.