Cited by 289Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Rare DiseasesForensic and Genetic Research

Determinants of Mutation Rate Variation in the Human Germline

Open access
Ségurel, Laure, Wyman, Minyoung J., Przeworski, Molly·2014·Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Abstract

Because germline mutations are the source of all evolutionary adaptations and heritable diseases, characterizing their properties and the rate at which they arise across individuals is of fundamental importance for human genetics. After decades during which estimates were based on indirect approaches, notably on inferences from evolutionary patterns, it is now feasible to count de novo mutations in transmissions from parents to offspring. Surprisingly, this direct approach yields a mutation rate that is twofold lower than previous estimates, calling into question our understanding of the chronology of human evolution and raising the possibility that mutation rates have evolved relatively rapidly. Here, we bring together insights from studies of human genetics and molecular evolution, focusing on where they conflict and what the discrepancies tell us about important open questions. We begin by outlining various methods for studying the properties of mutations in humans. We review what we have learned from their applications about genomic factors that influence mutation rates and the effects of sex, age, and other sources of interindividual variation. We then consider the mutation rate as a product of evolution and discuss how and why it may have changed over time in primates.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-genom-031714-125740

Cites

188 of 188 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?

  • Given that mutation rates per base pair per generation are thought to be similar across vertebrates and Drosophila, organisms with larger genome sizes are expected to carry more recessive lethals.

    “Given that the mutation rates per base pair per generation are thought to be similar across vertebrates and Drosophila (Ségurel et al. 2014), organisms with larger genome sizes are expected to carry more recessive lethals.”

    From An Estimate of the Average Number of Recessive Lethal Mutations Carried by Humans (2015) · cites this paper as Ségurel et al. 2014

    Figure 3 in ‘The Effect of Generation Time on the Mutation Rate Per Year’ places human and Drosophila per-base-pair, per-generation estimates on the same scale, and its caption identifies the estimates used for each. The copy does not establish that rates are similar across vertebrates generally; the prediction about recessive lethals is the citing authors’ inference, not the part attached to this citation. No page number is available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The older assumption that the human lineage's mutation rate changed little since the human-chimpanzee common ancestor is losing credibility because direct mutation rate estimates conflict with molecular-clock-based estimates.

    “It was once assumed that the human lineage's mutation rate had changed little since we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but this assumption is losing credibility owing to the conflict between direct mutation rate estimates and molecular-clock-based estimates (8,9).”
  • CpG transitions accumulate in a more clocklike manner than other mutations.

    “Given such a general challenge to the molecular clock assumption, it may be wise to infer demographic history from mutations such as CpG transitions that accumulate in a more clocklike way than other mutations (8,20).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ségurel, L., Wyman, M. J., & Przeworski, M.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Published
2014-08-31
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
47-70
ISSN
  • 1527-8204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-293X
OpenAlex
W2166880412
Cited by
289
References
188
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
germline mutation rate, de novo mutations, human evolution, molecular evolution, genetic disorders
MeSH terms
Animals, DNA, Humans, Genome, Human, Germ-Line Mutation, Evolution, Molecular, Genomics, 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