Cited by 215Genomics and Rare DiseasesEvolution and Genetic DynamicsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Estimating the human mutation rate using autozygosity in a founder population.

Open access
Campbell, Catarina D, Chong, Jessica X, Malig, Maika, Ko, Arthur, Dumont, Beth L, Han, Lide, Vives, Laura, O'Roak, Brian J +5 more·2012·Nature Genetics

Abstract

Knowledge of the rate and pattern of new mutation is critical to the understanding of human disease and evolution. We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate the human sequence mutation rate over multiple generations. We sequenced whole genomes from 5 parent-offspring trios and identified 44 segments of autozygosity. Using the number of meioses separating each pair of autozygous alleles and the 72 validated heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) from 512 Mb of autozygous DNA, we obtained an SNV mutation rate of 1.20 × 10(-8) (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.43 × 10(-8)) mutations per base pair per generation. The mutation rate for bases within CpG dinucleotides (9.72 × 10(-8)) was 9.5-fold that of non-CpG bases, and there was strong evidence (P = 2.67 × 10(-4)) for a paternal bias in the origin of new mutations (85% paternal). We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive of mutational hotspots or sites of long-range gene conversion.

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/ng.2418

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Based on R=0.29, a mutation rate of 1.2×10−8/bp per generation, and a diploid effective population size of 20,000, the target size for autosomal recessive lethal mutations is estimated to be 6.8×10^4 bp.

    “Based on our estimate of R = 0.29, a mutation rate of 1.2 3 10 2 8 /bp per generation (Campbell et al. 2012), and a diploid effective population size of 20,000, the target size is then estimated to be 6.8 3 10 4 bp.”

    From An Estimate of the Average Number of Recessive Lethal Mutations Carried by Humans (2015) · cites this paper as Campbell et al. 2012

  • Plugging in s=1, h=0.01, and a mutation rate of 1.2×10−8/bp per generation, the target size of nearly recessive mutations is estimated to be 2.4×10^5 bp.

    “Plugging in s = 1, h = 0.01 and taking a mutation rate of 1.2 3 10 2 8 /bp per generation (Campbell et al. 2012), we estimate that the target size of such nearly recessive mutations is 2.4 3 10 5 bp.”

    From An Estimate of the Average Number of Recessive Lethal Mutations Carried by Humans (2015) · cites this paper as Campbell et al. 2012

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campbell, C. D., Chong, J. X., Malig, M., Ko, A., Dumont, B. L., Han, L., Vives, L., O'Roak, B. J., Sudmant, P. H., Shendure, J., Abney, M., Ober, C., & Eichler, E. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Eichler, Evan E
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2012-09-23
Volume
44
Issue
11
Pages
1277-1281
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2020784233
Cited by
215
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 7
FWCI
18.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL085197)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (F32HG006070, R01HG002899)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD21244, R01HD021244)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
autozygosity, Hutterites, founder populations, parent-offspring trios, single nucleotide variants, mutational hotspots, whole genome sequencing
MeSH terms
Alleles, Chromosome Mapping, Genetics, Population, Heterozygote, Homozygote, Humans, Mutation, Pedigree, Genome, Human, Evolution, Molecular, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Mutation Rate

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