Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana

Open access
Monroe, J. Grey, Srikant, Thanvi, Carbonell-Bejerano, Pablo, Becker, Claude, Lensink, Mariele, Exposito-Alonso, Moises, Klein, Marie, Hildebrandt, Julia, Neumann, Manuela, Kliebenstein, Daniel, Weng, Mao-Lun, Imbert, Eric, Ågren, Jon, Rutter, Matthew T., Fenster, Charles B., Weigel, Detlef·2022·Nature

Abstract

Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences 1 . Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana . In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. With independent genomic mutation datasets, including from the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment conducted to date, we demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes. Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions ( r = 0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias 2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis , challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

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/s41586-021-04269-6

Cites

90 of 90 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

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

Show all 90 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Monroe, J. G., Srikant, T., Carbonell-Bejerano, P., Becker, C., Lensink, M., Exposito-Alonso, M., Klein, M., Hildebrandt, J., Neumann, M., Kliebenstein, D., Weng, M.-L., Imbert, E., Ågren, J., Rutter, M. T., Fenster, C. B., & Weigel, D.
Venue
Nature
Published
2022-01-12
Volume
602
Issue
7895
Pages
101-105
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4205790736
Cited by
396
References
90
FWCI
47.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41586-021-04269-6
The paper
Monroe, J. G., Srikant, T., Carbonell-Bejerano, P., Becker, C., Lensink, M., Exposito-Alonso, M., Klein, M., Hildebrandt, J., Neumann, M., Kliebenstein, D., Weng, M.-L., Imbert, E., Ågren, J., Rutter, M. T., Fenster, C. B., & Weigel, D. (2022). Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04269-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.