Cited by 234Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria

Open access
Papadopoulos, Dimitri, Schneider, Dominique, Meier-Eiss, Jessica, Arber, Werner, Lenski, Richard E., Blot, Michel·1999·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.96.7.3807

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • So far there has been little evidence to support the proposition that the overall rate of adaptation or morphological change of a species might influence the molecular clock.

    “Although it is possible that the overall rate of adaptation or morphological change of a species might influence the molecular clock, so far there has been little evidence to support this proposition from either experimental studies 19 or comparative analyses 20,21 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Given the lack of a relationship between phenotypic evolution and molecular rates, it seems unlikely that the observed faster rate of molecular evolution in more rapidly diversifying lineages is a result of species adapting to new niches.

    “Given the lack of a relationship between phenotypic evolution and molecular rates 19-21 , it seems unlikely that the observed faster rate of molecular evolution in more rapidly diversifying lineages is a result of species adapting to new niches.”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [19]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Lenski, R. E. & Travisano, M. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 6808-6814.
  2. [13]Fitch, W. M., Bush, R. M., Bender, C. A. & Cox, N. J. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7712-7718.
  3. [16]Atwood, K. C., Schneider, L. K. & Ryan, F. J. (1951) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 37, 146-155.
  4. [18]Gerrish, P. J. (1998) Ph.D. dissertation (Michigan State University, East Lansing).
  5. [25]Kidwell, M. & Lisch, D. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7704-7711.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., & Blot, M.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1999-03-30
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
3807-3812
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2049065348
Cited by
234
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
genome evolution, Escherichia coli, restriction fragment length polymorphism, insertion sequences, transposition, genome rearrangement, genetic diversity, beneficial mutations, genome dynamics
MeSH terms
Cell Division, Escherichia coli, Biological Evolution, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Time, Genome, Bacterial

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