ArticleNature communications2026
Mistranslation suppresses mistranscription in eukaryotes.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phenotypic mutations include non-heritable sequence changes arising from synthetic errors such as mistranscription or mistranslation. Despite wide potential impact of both error types, their relationship remains underexplored. Using Circ-Seq and mass spectrometry data, we perform a genome-wide analysis of mistranscriptions and mistranslations in five model organisms, and find that genes with frequent mistranslations exhibit lower mistranscription rates. We hypothesize that this pattern is explainable by a negative epistasis between the two error types. We assess our hypothesis with systematic experimental measurements that confirm the prevalence of negative epistasis, as well as in silico evolutionary simulations that suggest the extra deleterious effects resulting from negative epistasis are sufficient to create selection against mistranscription in highly mistranslated genes. Moreover, empirical genomic analyses indicate that genes with frequent mistranslation purge nonsynonymous mistranscriptions more efficiently, and that highly translated transcripts show fewer mistranscriptions. Combined, our results reveal an unrecognized interaction between mistranscription and mistranslation.
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.