Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9560386›Full record

ReviewGenetics1998

Rates of spontaneous mutation.

J W Drake, B Charlesworth, D Charlesworth, J F Crow

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genetics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 769 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
769citing papers in PubMed
34.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

769 citing papers in PubMed, 1,940 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evolution of the highest fidelity DNA replication systems.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. High stability of the genome ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Heterogeneous multicopy of blaNature communications · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Detection of mutations: from Ames test to duplex sequencing.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

709 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J W DrakeLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2233, USA. drake@niehs.nih.gov
B Charlesworth
D Charlesworth
J F Crow
University of Edinburgh · GBNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rates of spontaneous mutation per genome as measured in the laboratory are remarkably similar within broad groups of organisms but differ strikingly among groups. Mutation rates in RNA viruses, whose genomes contain ca. 10(4) bases, are roughly 1 per genome per replication for lytic viruses and roughly 0.1 per genome per replication for retroviruses and a retrotransposon. Mutation rates in microbes with DNA-based chromosomes are close to 1/300 per genome per replication; in this group, therefore, rates per base pair vary inversely and hugely as genome sizes vary from 6 x 10(3) to 4 x 10(7) bases or base pairs. Mutation rates in higher eukaryotes are roughly 0.1-100 per genome per sexual generation but are currently indistinguishable from 1/300 per cell division per effective genome (which excludes the fraction of the genome in which most mutations are neutral). It is now possible to specify some of the evolutionary forces that shape these diverse mutation rates.

Indexed as

MutationAnimalsEvolution, MolecularHumans

Identifiers

PMID9560386
PMCPMC1460098
OpenAlexW2144386534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.