Effects of Synonymous Mutations beyond Codon Bias: The Evidence for Adaptive Synonymous Substitutions from Microbial Evolution Experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synonymous mutations are often assumed to be neutral with respect to fitness because they do not alter the encoded amino acid and so cannot be "seen" by natural selection. Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that synonymous mutations can have fitness effects that drive adaptive evolution through their impacts on gene expression and protein folding. Here, we review what microbial experiments have taught us about the contribution of synonymous mutations to adaptation. A survey of site-directed mutagenesis experiments reveals the distributions of fitness effects for nonsynonymous and synonymous mutations are more similar, especially for beneficial mutations, than expected if all synonymous mutations were neutral, suggesting they should drive adaptive evolution more often than is typically observed. A review of experimental evolution studies where synonymous mutations have contributed to adaptation shows they can impact fitness through a range of mechanisms including the creation of illicit RNA polymerase binding sites impacting transcription and changes to mRNA folding stability that modulate translation. We suggest that clonal interference in evolving microbial populations may be the reason synonymous mutations play a smaller role in adaptive evolution than expected based on their observed fitness effects. We finish by discussing the impacts of falsely assuming synonymous mutations are neutral and discuss directions for future work exploring the role of synonymous mutations in adaptive evolution.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it