Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 149 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PERSPECTIVE: SPONTANEOUS DELETERIOUS MUTATION

Lynch, Michael, Blanchard, Jeff, Houle, David, Kibota, Travis, Schultz, Stewart, Vassilieva, Larissa, Willis, John·1999·Evolution

Abstract

Mildly deleterious mutation has been invoked as a leading explanation for a diverse array of observations in evolutionary genetics and molecular evolution and is thought to be a significant risk of extinction for small populations. However, much of the empirical evidence for the deleterious-mutation process derives from studies of Drosophila melanogaster, some of which have been called into question. We review a broad array of data that collectively support the hypothesis that deleterious mutations arise in flies at rate of about one per individual per generation, with the average mutation decreasing fitness by about only 2% in the heterozygous state. Empirical evidence from microbes, plants, and several other animal species provide further support for the idea that most mutations have only mildly deleterious effects on fitness, and several other species appear to have genomic mutation rates that are of the order of magnitude observed in Drosophila. However, there is mounting evidence that some organisms have genomic deleterious mutation rates that are substantially lower than one per individual per generation. These lower rates may be at least partially reconciled with the Drosophila data by taking into consideration the number of germline cell divisions per generation. To fully resolve the existing controversy over the properties of spontaneous mutations, a number of issues need to be clarified. These include the form of the distribution of mutational effects and the extent to which this is modified by the environmental and genetic background and the contribution of basic biological features such as generation length and genome size to interspecific differences in the genomic mutation rate. Once such information is available, it should be possible to make a refined statement about the long-term impact of mutation on the genetic integrity of human populations subject to relaxed selection resulting from modern medical procedures.

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 · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb05361.x

Cites

149 of 149 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 149 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Lynch, M., Blanchard, J., Houle, D., Kibota, T., Schultz, S., Vassilieva, L., & Willis, J.
Venue
Evolution
Published
1999-06
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
645-663
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983679519
Cited by
450
References
149
FWCI
14.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: PERSPECTIVE: SPONTANEOUS DELETERIOUS MUTATION. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb05361.x
The paper
Lynch, M., Blanchard, J., Houle, D., Kibota, T., Schultz, S., Vassilieva, L., & Willis, J. (1999). PERSPECTIVE: SPONTANEOUS DELETERIOUS MUTATION. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb05361.x

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.