“Lethal Mutations” a Misnomer or the Start of a Scientific Revolution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to review the history surrounding the discovery of lethal mutations, later described as delayed reproductive death. Lethal mutations were suggested very early on, to be due to a generalised instability in a cell population and are considered now to be one of the first demonstrations of "radiation-induced genomic instability" which led later to the establishment of the field of "non-targeted effects." The phenomenon was first described by Seymour et al. in 1986 and was confirmed by Trott's group in Europe and by Little and colleagues in the United States before being extended by Mendonca et al. in 1989, who showed conclusively that the distinguishing feature of lethal mutation occurrence was that it happened suddenly after about 9-10 population doublings in progeny which had survived the original dose of ionizing radiation. However, many authors then suggested that in fact, lethal mutations were implicit in the original experiments by Puck and Marcus in 1956 and were described in the extensive work by Sinclair in 1964, who followed clonal progeny for up to a year after irradiation and described "small colony formation" as a persistent consequence of ionizing radiation exposure. In this paper, we examine the history from 1956 to the present using the period from 1986-1989 as an anchor point to reach into the past and to go forward through the evolution of the field of low dose radiobiology where non-targeted effects predominate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".