Inbred lab mice are not isogenic: genetic variation within inbred strains used to infer the mutation rate per nucleotide site

For over a century, inbred mice have been used in many areas of genetics research to gain insight into the genetic variation underlying traits of interest. The generalizability of any genetic research study in inbred mice is dependent upon all individual mice being genetically identical, which in turn is dependent on the breeding designs of companies that supply inbred mice to researchers. Here, we compare whole-genome sequences from individuals of four commonly used inbred strains that were procured from either the colony nucleus or from a production colony (which can be as many as ten generations removed from the nucleus) of a large commercial breeder, in order to investigate the extent and nature of genetic variation within and between individuals. We found that individuals within strains are not isogenic, and there are differences in the levels of genetic variation that are explained by differences in the genetic distance from the colony nucleus. In addition, we employ a novel approach to mutation rate estimation based on the observed genetic variation and the expected site frequency spectrum at equilibrium, given a fully inbred breeding design. We find that it provides a reasonable per nucleotide mutation rate estimate when mice come from the colony nucleus (~7.9 × 10−9 in C3H/HeN), but substantially inflated estimates when mice come from production colonies.

The distribution of bacterial doubling times in the wild

Generation time varies widely across organisms and is an important factor in the life cycle, life history and evolution of organisms. Although the doubling time (DT) has been estimated for many bacteria in the laboratory, it is nearly impossible to directly measure it in the natural environment. However, an estimate can be obtained by measuring the rate at which bacteria accumulate mutations per year in the wild and the rate at which they mutate per generation in the laboratory. If we assume the mutation rate per generation is the same in the wild and in the laboratory, and that all mutations in the wild are neutral, an assumption that we show is not very important, then an estimate of the DT can be obtained by dividing the latter by the former. We estimate the DT for five species of bacteria for which we have both an accumulation and a mutation rate estimate. We also infer the distribution of DTs across all bacteria from the distribution of the accumulation and mutation rates. Both analyses suggest that DTs for bacteria in the wild are substantially greater than those in the laboratory, that they vary by orders of magnitude between different species of bacteria and that a substantial fraction of bacteria double very slowly in the wild.

Direct estimation of mutations in great apes reveals significant recent human slowdown in the yearly mutation rate

The human mutation rate per generation estimated from trio sequencing has revealed an almost linear relationship with the age of the father and the age of the mother. The yearly trio-based mutation rate estimate of ~0.43×10−9 is markedly lower than prior indirect estimates of ~1×10−9 per year from phylogenetic comparisons of the great apes. This suggests either a slowdown over the past 10 million years or an inaccurate interpretation of the fossil record. Here we use sequencing of chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan trios and find that each species has higher estimated mutation rates per year by factors of 1.67+/− 0.22, 1.54+/− 0.2 and 1.84+/− 0.19, respectively. These estimates suggest a very recent and appreciable slowdown in human mutation rate, and, if extrapolated over the great apes phylogeny, yields divergence estimates much more in line with the fossil record and the biogeography.

The Distribution of Bacterial Doubling Times in the Wild

Generation time varies widely across organisms and is an important factor in the life cycle, life history and evolution of organisms. Although the doubling time (DT), has been estimated for many bacteria in the lab, it is nearly impossible to directly measure it in the natural environment. However, an estimate can be obtained by measuring the rate at which bacteria accumulate mutations per year in the wild and the rate at which they mutate per generation in the lab. If we assume the mutation rate per generation is the same in the wild and in the lab, and that all mutations in the wild are neutral, an assumption that we show is not very important, then an estimate of the DT can be obtained by dividing the latter by the former. We estimate the DT for four species of bacteria for which we have both an accumulation and a mutation rate estimate. We also infer the distribution of DTs across all bacteria from the distribution of the accumulation and mutation rates. Both analyses suggest that DTs for bacteria in the wild are substantially greater than those in the lab, that they vary by orders of magnitude between different species of bacteria and that a substantial fraction of bacteria double very slowly in the wild.

Estimating Mutation Rate: How to Count Mutations?

Mutation rate is an essential parameter in genetic research. Counting the number of mutant individuals provides information for a direct estimate of mutation rate. However, mutant individuals in the same family can share the same mutations due to premeiotic mutation events, so that the number of mutant individuals can be significantly larger than the number of mutation events observed. Since mutation rate is more closely related to the number of mutation events, whether one should count only independent mutation events or the number of mutants remains controversial. We show in this article that counting mutant individuals is a correct approach for estimating mutation rate, while counting only mutation events will result in underestimation. We also derived the variance of the mutation-rate estimate, which allows us to examine a number of important issues about the design of such experiments. The general strategy of such an experiment should be to sample as many families as possible and not to sample much more offspring per family than the reciprocal of the pairwise correlation coefficient within each family. To obtain a reasonably accurate estimate of mutation rate, the number of sampled families needs to be in the same or higher order of magnitude as the reciprocal of the mutation rate.