CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences between germline and somatic mutation rates in humans and mice

Milholland, Brandon, Dong, Xiao, Zhang, Lei, Hao, Xiaoxiao, Suh, Yousin, Vijg, Jan·2017·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15183PMC PMC5436103
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The germline mutation rate has been extensively studied and has been found to vary greatly between species, but much less is known about the somatic mutation rate in multicellular organisms, which remains very difficult to determine. Here, we present data on somatic mutation rates in mice and humans, obtained by sequencing single cells and clones derived from primary fibroblasts, which allows us to make the first direct comparison with germline mutation rates in these two species. The results indicate that the somatic mutation rate is almost two orders of magnitude higher than the germline mutation rate and that both mutation rates are significantly higher in mice than in humans. Our findings demonstrate both the privileged status of germline genome integrity and species-specific differences in genome maintenance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms15183

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Far less is known about somatic mutation in other species than in humans.

    “With the exception of some initial studies, far less is known about somatic mutation in other species1–7.”

    From Somatic mutation rates scale with lifespan across mammals (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Abstract says that much less is known about somatic mutation rates in multicellular organisms and describes earlier studies using reporter loci. It does not say that somatic mutation is less well understood in other species than in humans; its explicit comparison is with knowledge of germline mutation rates. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Sturtevant, A. H. Essays on evolution. I. On the effects of selection on mutation rate. Q. Rev. Biol. 12, 464–467 (1937). · DOI
  2. Baer, C. F., Miyamoto, M. M. & Denver, D. R. Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 619–631 (2007). · DOI
  3. Lynch, M. Evolution of the mutation rate. Trends Genet. 26, 345–352 (2010). · DOI
  4. Kondrashov, A. Genetics: the rate of human mutation. Nature 488, 467–468 (2012). · DOI
  5. Li, R. et al. Somatic point mutations occurring early in development: a monozygotic twin study. J. Med. Genet. 51, 28–34 (2014). · DOI
  6. Milholland, B., Auton, A., Suh, Y. & Vijg, J. Age-related somatic mutations in the cancer genome. Oncotarget 6, 24627–24635 (2015). · DOI
  7. Alexandrov, L. B. et al. Clock-like mutational processes in human somatic cells. Nat. Genet 47, 1402–1407 (2015). · DOI
  8. Gossen, J. A. et al. Efficient rescue of integrated shuttle vectors from transgenic mice: a model for studying mutations in vivo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 7971–7975 (1989). · DOI
  9. Boerrigter, M. E., Dollé, M. E., Martus, H. J., Gossen, J. A. & Vijg, J. Plasmid-based transgenic mouse model for studying in vivo mutations. Nature 377, 657–659 (1995). · DOI
  10. Gundry, M., Li, W., Maqbool, S. B. & Vijg, J. Direct, genome-wide assessment of DNA mutations in single cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 2032–2040 (2012). · DOI
  11. Chung, J. H. et al. Whole-genome sequencing and integrative genomic analysis approach on two 22q11.2 deletion syndrome family trios for genotype to phenotype correlations. Hum. Mutat. 36, 797–807 (2015). · DOI
  12. Besenbacher, S. et al. Novel variation and de novo mutation rates in population-wide de novo assembled Danish trios. Nat. Commun. 6, 5969 (2015). · DOI
  13. Adewoye, A. B., Lindsay, S. J., Dubrova, Y. E. & Hurles, M. E. The genome-wide effects of ionizing radiation on mutation induction in the mammalian germline. Nat. Commun. 6, 6684 (2015). · DOI
  14. Uchimura, A. et al. Germline mutation rates and the long-term phenotypic effects of mutation accumulation in wild-type laboratory mice and mutator mice. Genome Res. 25, 1125–1134 (2015). · DOI
  15. Busuttil, R. A., Rubio, M., Dollé, M. E. T., Campisi, J. & Vijg, J. Mutant frequencies and spectra depend on growth state and passage number in cells cultured from transgenic lacZ-plasmid reporter mice. DNA Repair 5, 52–60 (2006). · DOI
  16. Venn, O. et al. Nonhuman genetics. Strong male bias drives germline mutation in chimpanzees. Science 344, 1272–1275 (2014). · DOI
  17. Drost, J. B. & Lee, W. R. Biological basis of germline mutation: comparisons of spontaneous germline mutation rates among Drosophila, mouse, and human. Environ. Mol. Mutagen 25, 48–64 (1995). · DOI
  18. Crow, J. F. The origins, patterns and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1, 40–47 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Dong, X. et al. Accurate identification of single-nucleotide variants in whole-genome-amplified single cells. Nat. Methods doi:10.1038/nmeth.4227 (2017). · DOI
  20. Hazen, J. L. et al. The complete genome sequences, unique mutational spectra, and developmental potency of adult neurons revealed by cloning. Neuron 89, 1223–1236 (2016). · DOI
  21. Cheng, L. et al. Low incidence of DNA sequence variation in human induced pluripotent stem cells generated by nonintegrating plasmid expression. Cell Stem Cell 10, 337–344 (2012). · DOI
  22. Young, M. A. et al. Background mutations in parental cells account for most of the genetic heterogeneity of induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 10, 570–582 (2012). · DOI
  23. Popp, C. et al. Genome-wide erasure of DNA methylation in mouse primordial germ cells is affected by AID deficiency. Nature 463, 1101–1105 (2010). · DOI
  24. Vijg, J., Mullaart, E., van der Schans, G. P., Lohman, P. H. & Knook, D. L. Kinetics of ultraviolet induced DNA excision repair in rat and human fibroblasts. Mutat. Res. 132, 129–138 (1984).
  25. Sakharkar, M. K., Perumal, B. S., Sakharkar, K. R. & Kangueane, P. An analysis on gene architecture in human and mouse genomes. In Silico Biol. 5, 347–365 (2005). · DOI
  26. Kirkwood, T. B. L. Evolution of ageing. Mech. Ageing Dev. 123, 737–745 (2002). · DOI
  27. Vijg, J. Aging of the Genome: the Dual Role of the DNA in Life and Death Oxford University Press (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  28. MacRae, S. L. et al. Comparative analysis of genome maintenance genes in naked mole rat, mouse, and human. Aging Cell 14, 288–291 (2015). · DOI
  29. MacRae, S. L. et al. DNA repair in species with extreme lifespan differences. Aging 7, 1171–1184 (2015). · DOI
  30. Kondrashov, A. S. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? J. Theor. Biol. 175, 583–594 (1995). · DOI
  31. Park, C. H. et al. Heat shock-induced matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 and MMP-3 are mediated through ERK and JNK activation and via an autocrine interleukin-6 loop. J. Invest. Dermatol 123, 1012–1019 (2004). · DOI
  32. Koboldt, D. C. et al. VarScan 2: Somatic mutation and copy number alteration discovery in cancer by exome sequencing. Genome Res. 22, 568–576 (2012). · DOI
  33. Ramu, A. et al. DeNovoGear: de novo indel and point mutation discovery and phasing. Nat. Methods 10, 985–987 (2013). · DOI
  34. McKenna, A. et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213–219 (2013). · DOI
  36. Bianconi, E. et al. An estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Ann. Hum. Biol. 40, 463–471 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  37. Perez-Losada, J. & Balmain, A. Stem-cell hierarchy in skin cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 434–443 (2003). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Milholland, B., Dong, X., Zhang, L., Hao, X., Suh, Y., & Vijg, J.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-05-09
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/ncomms15183
PMC
PMC5436103
Cited by
429
References
10
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review