The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population

By P. Gerrish, Richard E. Lenski. Genetica, 2004

930 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8bbc03a11d69bd0e5527052ff714c339d31f041c

Citations in the corpus

• Genetic Draft, Selective Interference, and Population Genetics of Rapid Adaptation (2013, neutral): “This is the essence of clonal interference theory by Gerrish and Lenski (1998).”
• A coalescent model for the effect of advantageous mutations on the genealogy of a population (2004, neutral): “There has been some work in the biologyliterature on the question of how a selective sweep is affected byanother selective sweep happening at the same time (see, for example, [1, 12 ,15]).”
• Global Epistasis Makes Adaptation Predictable Despite Sequence-Level Stochasticity (2014, neutral): “This has driven extensive prior work to measure the mutation rate and distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of new mutations (1-8), and to predict how these parameters determine the outcomes of adaptation (9-12).”
• Phenotypic and Genomic Evolution during a 20,000‐Generation Experiment with the Bacterium Escherichia coli (2010, neutral): “The situation is made even more complicated, and the fixation probabilities further reduced, by the fact that the populations studied here are asexual, which leads to a 236 R. LENSKI phenomenon called clonal interference (Muller 1932; Gerrish and Lenski 1998).”
• Rigorous results for a population model with selection II: genealogy of the population (2014, neutral): “Some authors have considered models in which the selective advantage resulting from a mutation is random (see [7, 11, 17, 18, 23]), but we do not consider this complication here.”
• The Speed of Evolution in Large Asexual Populations (2009, neutral): “S ince the leading behavior 16 Note that in the original paper of Gerrish and Lenski [21], it was erroneously concluded that vN approaches a finite “speed limit” for N → ∞.”
• Merging molecular mechanism and evolution: theory and computation at the interface of biophysics and evolutionary population genetics (2014, neutral): “Traditional models in evolutionary biology assume the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) and then infer the possible dynamics [1,2], or assume the possible dynamics and then infer the DFE [3–5].”
• Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli (2008, neutral): “The precipitous decline in the frequency of Cit" cells just before the massive population expansion suggests clonal interference (47), whereby the Cit$ subpopulation produced a beneficial mutant that outcompeted the emerging Cit" subpopulation until the latter evolved some other beneficial mutation ”
• Predicting evolution (2017, neutral): “Clonal interference has been observed in laboratory evolution of microbial and viral populations 18,19 and probably governs all of the systems shown in Fig.”
• Mechanisms of viral mutation (2016, neutral): “As such, recombination is expected to enhance adaptation when a large number of alleles coexist in the same population, a scenario that typically takes place at high mutation rates [125].”
• The Population Genetics of dN/dS (2008, neutral): “In general, such models are extremely complicated because multiple mutant linages compete with each other [36–41].”