Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mutation accumulation (MA) experiments, in which de novo mutations are sampled and subsequently characterized, are an essential tool in understanding the processes underlying evolution. In microbial populations, MA protocols typically involve a period of population growth between severe bottlenecks, such that a single individual can form a visible colony. While it has long been appreciated that the action of positive selection during this growth phase cannot be eliminated, it is typically assumed to be negligible. Here, we quantify the effect of both positive and negative selection in MA studies, demonstrating that selective effects can substantially bias the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) and mutation rates estimated from typical MA protocols in microbes. We then present a simple correction for this bias which applies to both beneficial and deleterious mutations, and can be used to correct the observed DFE in multiple environments. Finally, we use simulated MA experiments to illustrate the extent to which the MA-inferred DFE differs from the underlying true DFE, and demonstrate that the proposed correction accurately reconstructs the true DFE over a wide range of scenarios. These results highlight that positive selection during microbial MA experiments is in fact not negligible, but can be corrected to gain a more accurate understanding of fundamental evolutionary parameters.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".