ArticleGenetics2022
Causes of variability in estimates of mutational variance from mutation accumulation experiments.
Article in Genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural selection shapes the evolution of the metabolome in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Levels of additive genetic variation vary substantially between species.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Evolution of the rate, molecular spectrum, and fitness effects of mutation under minimal selection in Caenorhabditis elegans.Genetics · 2026Article
- Evolution of the rate, molecular spectrum, and fitness effects of mutation under minimal selection inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Tissue-specific differences of gene expression variance in mutation accumulation lines of mice.Heredity · 2026Article
- Quantitative-genetic analysis of directional adaptation suggests low maximum sustainable rates of change in agreement with data from field populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cumulative effects of mutation and selection on susceptibility to bacterial pathogens in Caenorhabditis elegans.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2025Article
- An estimate of fitness reduction from mutation accumulation in a mammal allows assessment of the consequences of relaxed selection.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- The Effects of De Novo Mutation on Gene Expression and the Consequences for Fitness in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Characteristics of the new phenotypic variation introduced via mutation have broad implications in evolutionary and medical genetics. Standardized estimates of this mutational variance, VM, span 2 orders of magnitude, but the causes of this remain poorly resolved. We investigated estimate heterogeneity using 2 approaches. First, meta-analyses of ∼150 estimates of standardized VM from 37 mutation accumulation studies did not support a difference among taxa (which differ in mutation rate) but provided equivocal support for differences among trait types (life history vs morphology, predicted to differ in mutation rate). Notably, several experimental factors were confounded with taxon and trait, and further empirical data are required to resolve their influences. Second, we analyzed morphological data from an experiment in Drosophila serrata to determine the potential for unintentional heterogeneity among environments in which phenotypes were measured (i.e. among laboratories or time points) or transient segregation of mutations within mutation accumulation lines to affect standardized VM. Approximating the size of an average mutation accumulation experiment, variability among repeated estimates of (accumulated) mutational variance was comparable to variation among published estimates of standardized VM. This heterogeneity was (partially) attributable to unintended environmental variation or within line segregation of mutations only for wing size, not wing shape traits. We conclude that sampling error contributed substantial variation within this experiment, and infer that it will also contribute substantially to differences among published estimates. We suggest a logistically permissive approach to improve the precision of estimates, and consequently our understanding of the dynamics of mutational variance of quantitative traits.
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.