Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines

Open access
Keightley, Peter D., Trivedi, Urmi, Thomson, Marian, Oliver, Fiona, Kumar, Sujai, Blaxter, Mark L.·2009·Genome Research

Abstract

We inferred the rate and properties of new spontaneous mutations in Drosophila melanogaster by carrying out whole-genome shotgun sequencing-by-synthesis of three mutation accumulation (MA) lines that had been maintained by close inbreeding for an average of 262 generations. We tested for the presence of new mutations by generating alignments of each MA line to the D. melanogaster reference genome sequence and then compared these alignments base by base. We determined empirically that at least five reads at a site within each line are required for accurate single nucleotide mutation calling. We mapped a total of 174 single-nucleotide mutations, giving a single nucleotide mutation rate of 3.5 × 10−9 per site per generation. There were no false positives in a random sample of 40 of these mutations checked by Sanger sequencing. Variation in the numbers of mutations among the MA lines was small and nonsignificant. Numbers of transition and transversion mutations were 86 and 88, respectively, implying that transition mutation rate is close to 2× the transversion rate. We observed 1.5× as many G or C → A or T as A or T → G or C mutations, implying that the G or C → A or T mutation rate is close to 2× the A or T → G or C mutation rate. The base composition of the genome is therefore not at an equilibrium determined solely by mutation. The predicted G + C content at mutational equilibrium (33%) is similar to that observed in transposable element remnants. Nearest-neighbor mutational context dependencies are nonsignificant, suggesting that this is a weak phenomenon in Drosophila. We also saw nonsignificant differences in the mutation rate between transcribed and untranscribed regions, implying that any transcription-coupled repair process is weak. Of seven short indel mutations confirmed, six were deletions, consistent with the deletion bias that is thought to exist in Drosophila.

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 · 10.1101/gr.091231.109

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Keightley, P. D., Trivedi, U., Thomson, M., Oliver, F., Kumar, S., & Blaxter, M. L.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2009-05-13
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
1195-1201
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150172942
Cited by
357
References
27
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.091231.109
The paper
Keightley, P. D., Trivedi, U., Thomson, M., Oliver, F., Kumar, S., & Blaxter, M. L. (2009). Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.091231.109

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.