Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 683–692 | Cite as

Toward a Unique Definition of the Mutation Rate

Perspectives Article

Abstract

In around 1943, while writing a classic paper with Luria, Delbrück envisioned two kinds of mutation rates: One was expressed as mutations per bacterium per unit time, the other as mutations per bacterium per division cycle. Due to minor mathematical errors, the precise connection between the two concepts remained elusive for Delbrück. As a result, researchers and educators alike are still grappling with the definition of the mutation rate. Within the context of microbial mutation, the current author proposes an idealized model to bring new clarity to the distinction between the two forms of the mutation rate that Delbrück once attempted to define and characterize. The paper also critiques two incorrect estimators of mutation rates and brings to light two important yet unexplored “invariance” hypotheses about mutation rates.

Keywords

Mutation rate Luria–Delbrück protocol Cell generation time 

References

  1. Armitage P (1952) The statistical theory of bacterial populations subject to mutation. J R Stat Soc Ser B 14:1–44MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage P (1953) Statistical concepts in the theory of bacterial mutation. J Hyg 51:162–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beale GH (1948) A method for the measurement of mutation rate from phage sensitivity to phage resistance in E. coli. J Gen Microbiol 2:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delbrück M (1945) Spontaneous mutations of bacteria. Ann Mo Bot Gard 32:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake JW (2013) Mutation rate. In: Brenner S, Miller JH (eds) Brenner’s encyclopedia of genetics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 550–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ford CB, Lin PL, Chase MR, Shah RR, Iartchouk O, Galagan J, Modaideen N, Ioerger TR, Sacchettini JC, Lipsitch M, Flynn JL, Fortune SM (2011) Use of whole genome sequencing to estimate the mutation rate of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during latent infection. Nat Genet 43:482–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gefen O, Fridman O, Robin I, Balaban NQ (2014) Direct observation of single stationary-phase bacteria reveals a surprisingly long period of constant protein production activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffiths AJF, Miller JH, Suzuki DT, Lewontin RC, Gelbart W (2000) An introduction to genetic analysis, 7th edn. W.H. Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Gruber AJ, Erdem AL, Sabat G, Karata K, Jaszczur MM, Vo DD, Olsen TM, Woodgate R, Goodman MF, Cox MM (2015) A RecA protein surface required for activation of DNA polymerase V. PLoS Genet 11:e1005066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kingman JFC (1993) Poisson processes. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Kondo S (1972) A theoretical study on spontaneous mutation rate. Mutat Res 14:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krašovec R, Belavkin RV, Aston JAD, Channon A, Aston E, Rash BM, Kadirvel M, Forbes S, Knight CG (2014) Mutation rate plasticity in rifampicin resistance depends on Escherichia coli cell–cell interactions. Nat Commun 5:3742. doi:10.1028/ncomms4742 Google Scholar
  13. Lea EA, Coulson CA (1949) The distribution of the numbers of mutants in bacterial populations. J Genet 49:264–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loewe L, Textor V, Scherer S (2003) Hige deleterious genomic mutation rate in stationary phase of Escherichia coli. Science 302:1558–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luria SE (1946) Spontaneous bacterial mutations to resistance to antibacterial agents. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 11:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luria SE (1984) A slot machine. A broken test tuber. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Luria SE, Delbrück M (1943) Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics 28:491–511Google Scholar
  18. Niccum BA, Poteau R, Hamman GE, Varada JC, Dshalalow JH, Sinden RR (2012) On an unbiased and consistent estimator for mutation rates. J Theor Biol 300:360–367MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Novick A, Szilalrd L (1950) Experiments with the chemostat on spontaneous mutations of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 36:708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oide S, Gunji W, Moteki Y, Yamamoto S, Suda M, Jojima T, Yukawa H, Inui M (2015) Thermal and solvent stress cross-tolerance conferred to Corynebacterium glutamicum by adaptive laboratory evolution. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:2284–2298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Renshaw E (1991) Modelling biological populations in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell PJ (2006) iGenetics. A Mendelian approach. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  23. Ryan FJ (1959) Bacterial mutation in a stationary phase and the question of cell turnover. J Gen Microbiol 21:530–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Snyder L, Champness W (2007) Molecular genetics of bacteria, 3rd edn. ASM Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Witkin EW (1946) Inherited differences in sensitivity to radiation in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 32:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zamenhof S (1946) Discussion of Shapiro’s paper. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 11:235Google Scholar
  27. Zheng Q (2002) Statistical and algorithmic methods for fluctuation analysis with SALVADOR as an implementation. Math Siosci 176:237–252MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Zheng Q (2003) Mathematical issues arising from the directed mutation controversy. Genetics 164:373–379Google Scholar
  29. Zheng Q (2005) Update on estimation of mutation rates using data from fluctuation experiments. Genetics 171:61–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zheng Q (2010) The Luria–Delbrück distribution: early statistical thinking about evolution. CHANCE 23(2):15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsTexas A&M School of Public HealthCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations