Determinants of Base-Pair Substitution Patterns Revealed by Whole-Genome Sequencing of DNA Mismatch Repair Defective <i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Proofreading during DNA replication and post-replication mismatch repair are two major defenses against mutations. Foster et al. and Niccum et al. used mutation accumulation and whole genome sequencing to assemble a database of thousands... Mismatch repair (MMR) is a major contributor to replication fidelity, but its impact varies with sequence context and the nature of the mismatch. Mutation accumulation experiments followed by whole-genome sequencing of MMR-defective Escherichia coli strains yielded ≈30,000 base-pair substitutions (BPSs), revealing mutational patterns across the entire chromosome. The BPS spectrum was dominated by A:T to G:C transitions, which occurred predominantly at the center base of 5′NAC3′+5′GTN3′ triplets. Surprisingly, growth on minimal medium or at low temperature attenuated these mutations. Mononucleotide runs were also hotspots for BPSs, and the rate at which these occurred increased with run length. Comparison with ≈2000 BPSs accumulated in MMR-proficient strains revealed that both kinds of hotspots appeared in the wild-type spectrum and so are likely to be sites of frequent replication errors. In MMR-defective strains transitions were strand biased, occurring twice as often when A and C rather than T and G were on the lagging-strand template. Loss of nucleotide diphosphate kinase increases the cellular concentration of dCTP, which resulted in increased rates of mutations due to misinsertion of C opposite A and T. In an mmr ndk double mutant strain, these mutations were more frequent when the template A and T were on the leading strand, suggesting that lagging-strand synthesis was more error-prone, or less well corrected by proofreading, than was leading strand synthesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".