Effects of Synonymous Mutations beyond Codon Bias: The Evidence for Adaptive Synonymous Substitutions from Microbial Evolution Experiments
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".