Cited by 6Evolution and Genetic DynamicsPhilosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationEvolution and Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pick your Poisson: an educational primer for Luria and Delbrück’s classic paper.

Open access
Meneely, Philip M·2016·Genetics

Abstract

The origin of beneficial mutations is fundamentally important in understanding the processes by which natural selection works. Using phage-resistant mutants in Escherichia coli as their model for identifying the origin of beneficial mutations, Luria and Delbrück distinguished between two different hypotheses. Under the first hypothesis, which they termed "acquired immunity," the phages induced bacteria to mutate to immunity; this predicts that none of the resistant mutants were present before infection by the phages. Under the second hypothesis, termed "mutation to immunity," resistant bacteria arose from random mutations independent of the presence of the phages; this predicts that resistant bacteria were present in the population before infection by the phages. These two hypotheses could be distinguished by calculating the frequencies at which resistant mutants arose in separate cultures infected at the same time and comparing these frequencies to the theoretical results under each model. The data clearly show that mutations arise at a frequency that is independent of the presence of the phages. By inference, natural selection reveals the genetic variation that is present in a population rather than inducing or causing this variation.

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 · 10.1534/genetics.115.184564

Cites

5 of 5 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

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?

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 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Luria, 1966, Mutations of bacteria and of bacteriophage, 173

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Meneely, P. M.
Affiliations
Haverford College (US)
Corresponding author
Meneely, Philip M
Venue
Genetics
Published
2015-02-05
Volume
202
Issue
2
Pages
371-375
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2257621456
Cited by
6
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
Luria-Delbrück fluctuation test, phage resistance, Escherichia coli bacteriophages, mutation rate, natural selection, genetic variation, Poisson distribution
MeSH terms
Escherichia coli, Genetics, Humans, Immunity, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Poisson Distribution, History, 20th Century, 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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pick your Poisson: an educational primer for Luria and Delbrück’s classic paper. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.115.184564
The paper
Meneely, P. M. (2016). Pick your Poisson: an educational primer for Luria and Delbrück’s classic paper. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.184564