Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compensatory mutation occurs when a loss of fitness caused by a deleterious mutation is restored by its epistatic interaction with a second mutation at a different site in the genome. How many different compensatory mutations can act on a given deleterious mutation? Although this quantity is fundamentally important to understanding the evolutionary consequence of mutation and the genetic complexity of adaptation, it remains poorly understood. To determine the shape of the statistical distribution for the number of compensatory mutations per deleterious mutation, we have performed a maximum-likelihood analysis of experimental data collected from the suppressor mutation literature. Suppressor mutations are used widely to assess protein interactions and are under certain conditions equivalent to compensatory mutations. By comparing the maximum likelihood of a variety of candidate distribution functions, we established that an L-shaped gamma distribution (alpha=0.564, theta=21.01) is the most successful at explaining the collected data. This distribution predicts an average of 11.8 compensatory mutations per deleterious mutation. Furthermore, the success of the L-shaped gamma distribution is robust to variation in mutation rates among sites. We have detected significant differences among viral, prokaryotic, and eukaryotic data subsets in the number of compensatory mutations and also in the proportion of compensatory mutations that are intragenic. This is the first attempt to characterize the overall diversity of compensatory mutations, identifying a consistent and accurate prior distribution of compensatory mutation diversity for theoretical evolutionary models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".