Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Mutation rates among RNA viruses

John W. Drake and John J. Holland
  1. *Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233; and ‡Institute for Molecular Genetics and Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS November 23, 1999 96 (24) 13910-13913; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910
John W. Drake
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John J. Holland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Walter M. Fitch, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved October 5, 1999 (received for review August 18, 1999)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The rate of spontaneous mutation is a key parameter in modeling the genetic structure and evolution of populations. The impact of the accumulated load of mutations and the consequences of increasing the mutation rate are important in assessing the genetic health of populations. Mutation frequencies are among the more directly measurable population parameters, although the information needed to convert them into mutation rates is often lacking. A previous analysis of mutation rates in RNA viruses (specifically in riboviruses rather than retroviruses) was constrained by the quality and quantity of available measurements and by the lack of a specific theoretical framework for converting mutation frequencies into mutation rates in this group of organisms. Here, we describe a simple relation between ribovirus mutation frequencies and mutation rates, apply it to the best (albeit far from satisfactory) available data, and observe a central value for the mutation rate per genome per replication of μg ≈ 0.76. (The rate per round of cell infection is twice this value or about 1.5.) This value is so large, and ribovirus genomes are so informationally dense, that even a modest increase extinguishes the population.

Rates of spontaneous mutation are critical to understanding the genetic structure of populations over time and thus to understanding the course of evolution. Mutation provides the prime variation on which selection, recombination, and genetic drift operate. Recombination and its enabling partner, sex, probably persist primarily because of the deleterious consequences of mutation (1). In a species capable of contemplating its own genetic health, the products of mutation are viewed as major threats to public health, and the consequences of increasing the mutation rate are viewed with alarm (2).

When rates of spontaneous mutation are expressed per genome per genome replication, different broad groups of organisms display characteristic values (3): roughly 0.2 for retroelements; close to 0.0034 for DNA-based microbes (including both viral and cellular organisms); and roughly 0.01 for higher eukaryotes. Riboviruses (RNA viruses exclusive of retroviruses) tend to display very high mutation rates (4); however, quantifying those rates has proved difficult, because the mutational targets have been too small to sample the genome reliably and because it was uncertain how to combine mutation frequencies and population history to calculate mutation rates (5).

Here, we describe a robust relationship among the mutation frequency f, the easily determined growth parameter c, and the mutation rate μ. Applying this formulation to the available data provides the best estimate to date of the rate of spontaneous mutation in riboviruses. In addition, the formulation also suggests ways to measure hitherto opaque parameters of viral replication.

Theory

The replication of riboviruses whose chromosomes are composed of single-stranded RNA follows a simple scheme (Fig. 1). A cell is infected with one (or more) virus particles. Each infecting genome is copied iteratively such that complementary strands accumulate. Subsequently, the complementary strands are themselves copied iteratively, producing final strands of the same polarity as the infecting strand, and these final strands are packaged and released. We make the reasonable assumption that “final” strands rarely or never reenter the beginning of the cycle within a single infection. The key attribute of iterative replication is that the mutation frequency f equals the mutation rate μ per copying event: if n complementary strands are copied from a template and if μ is the mutation rate per copying event, then the number of mutations will be nμ, and f = nμ/n = μ.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

The accumulation of mutations during a single round of infection. The diagram shows the consequences of an arbitrary μg = 0.2 at both the first and second rounds, and the scheme is simplified by setting n2 = 20 for all second rounds of copying. The burst size is n1n2 = 100. ○, unmutated genomes; ➊, genomes with a single mutation; ➋, genomes with two mutations, which may arise in sequential replications (as in the fourth line) or during a single replication (as in the bottom line).

When a ribovirus infects a cell, the population of complementary strands accumulating from the first round of repeated copying has f1 = μ1. Ignoring rare precise back mutations and in the absence of selection, this mutant subpopulation will persist at the frequency f1. In the second round of repeated copying, a new fraction of mutations will be contributed, amounting to f2 = μ2. Thus, in one cycle of cell infection, f = f1 + f2 = μ1 + μ2. It is presently unknown whether μ1 and μ2 differ, and we must combine them into f = 2μ. This process of linear accumulation will continue as a virus stock grows through c cycles of cell infection; c will generally be a small (but not necessarily an integer) number, from one for a single round of infection (high multiplicity of infection), to perhaps four or five for a large population of host cells and a small inoculum. For stocks grown to a size sufficient to accumulate numerous mutations, the general formulation is f = 2cμ. Note that this expression holds only in the absence of selection, which is likely to be weak or absent during the first cycle of infection but may become strong in subsequent cycles. The mutational targets used in the studies we cite are believed to be largely free of selection. Given specific information about selection coefficients, it is possible to describe their effects on mutation accumulation over multiple cycles.

An alternative approach, used frequently with DNA-based microbes and occasionally with riboviruses, is the null-class method (6). In this method, numerous parallel cultures are each seeded with a small amount of virus and grown to a population size such that only roughly half of the cultures have accumulated any mutants. Each culture is then screened simply for the presence or absence of mutants, and the average number N of virus particles per culture is also determined. On the assumption that mutational events are randomly distributed among replication events and because the number of replication events per culture is close to N, the proportion of cultures with no mutants P(0) = e−Nμ.

Calculations

General Method.

By using either the accumulation method or the null-class method described above, a published mutation frequency f for a particular trait can be converted into a mutation rate μ. A mutation rate μb per base can be obtained by dividing μ by the mutational target size T (the number of bases at which the event can occur) and multiplying by a correction factor for mutations other than base substitutions. For mutations studied in riboviruses, T is usually very small; for instance, if the mutations consist exclusively of a single base substitution (such as G → A) at a single site, then T = 1/3. (Strictly speaking, T is a third of the total number of different base substitutions that can be monitored.) In these riboviral systems, only base-pair substitutions are scored. Thus, it is necessary to correct for all other kinds of mutations. Because riboviral mutational spectra are unavailable, we must instead fall back on the correction factor [(all mutations)/(base pair substitutions)] of 1.462 determined in several DNA-based microbial systems (5, 7). Multiplying by the genome size G then yields the mutation rate per genome per replication μg. When these calculations are strung together, the mutation accumulation μg = 1.462fG/2cT, and the null-class μg = −1.462[lnP(0)]G/NT.

Previous Values Accepted or Updated.

Several mutation frequencies and references to supplementary information were considered previously (5) and either are used unchanged or are recalculated with the new equation for mutation rate. (i) In two experiments measuring C → T mutations at poliovirus base 5,310 (8), f = 3.05 × 10−5 and 2.28 × 10−5; G = 7,433; c ≈ 2.8 and 2.8; T = 1/3; and μg = 0.177 and 0.132, respectively. (ii) Three measurements were made of mutation to guanidine resistance in poliovirus (9). The first was transformed by an arcane method that does not require updating and for which μg = 0.758 (5). In the second and third, f = 1.11 × 10−4 and 5.73 × 10−4; c ≈ 2.5 and 2.5; T = 4/3; and μg = 0.182 and 0.876, respectively. (iii) In two measurements with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV; ref. 10), f = 1.75 × 10−4 and 2.35 × 10−4; G = 11,162; c ≈ 2 and 2.5; T = 2/3; and μg = 1.07 and 1.15, respectively.

New Values.

(i) Frequencies of revertants of drug-dependent mutants of human rhinovirus 16 to drug independence were measured somewhat incidentally (11). This virus has a genome of 7,124 bases (12). The mean revertant frequency (reciprocal of the mean relative plaquing efficiency) of the V1210A mutant was 1/6,457 = 1.55 × 10−4. Assuming that reversion was exclusively to the wild type, T = 1/3; c ≈ 3.6, including the growth of plaques into stocks. Thus, μg = (1.462 × 1.55 × 10−4 × 7,124)/(2 × 3.6 × 1/3) = 0.672. (ii) Mutation rates to resistance to monoclonal antibodies were screened in measles virus by using the null-class method (13). When the authors’ calculations are extended to take into account the effects of the inoculum size on the number of total replications and the content of preexisting mutants in the inocula, the mean mutation rate to drug independence is μ = 1.08 × 10−4. The number of sites at which mutation could occur was estimated from the observation that five sequenced mutations fell into four sites; assuming a Poisson distribution of mutations among sites, the most probable number of sites is 7.5. The size of the measles genome is 15,894 bases (14). Thus, μg = (1.462 × 1.08 × 10−4 × 15,894 × 3)/7.5 = 1.00.

Data Not Used.

In several instances, either recently appearing or previously analyzed data (5) are not well suited to the approach employed here. The latter include pioneering bacteriophage studies (15, 16), studies of VSV and poliovirus genomic RNA based on limit ribonuclease digestions rather than on genetic approaches (17, 18), and studies based on sequencing clonal copies of poliovirus and influenza virus genomes or involving sampling procedures that may have perturbed mutant frequencies (19, 20).

Mutation Rates Tabulated.

The independently measured μg values are arranged by increasing magnitude in Table 1. For a set of nine values varying by about 9-fold, the median is likely to be a better estimator than the mean. The 96% confidence interval around the median is 0.18–1.07 (21).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Genomic mutation rates in riboviruses

Discussion

The mutation process in riboviruses can be described by a simple linear equation that reflects the repeated copying of templates that is characteristic of these organisms. The mutational consequences of iterative replication have not been explored much in the several decades since the primordial analysis of a “stamping machine” model (22). An exception is the single-stranded DNA bacteriophage φX174. This phage replicates in a complicated but fundamentally linear manner (23, 24), such that the mutation equations (25, 26) are similar to the equation used here for riboviruses, although the observed rates are far lower than those of riboviruses and are instead characteristic of DNA-based microbes (3). However, uncertainty persists concerning the extent to which second-generation strands reenter the beginning of the cycle within a single φX174 infection (24).

Applying mainly mutation-accumulation or null-class analyses to published data yields a set of nine rates of mutation per genome per replication that vary fairly smoothly over about an order of magnitude (Table 1). Just such variation is expected from the tiny mutational target sizes characteristic of the cited measurements: 1/3 base for seven entries, 2/3 base for two entries, and roughly 7.5 bases for the measles-virus entry. Most mutational spectra display a wide range of site-specific mutabilities, and even a specific substitution such as G:C → A:T in DNA can vary by over 2,000-fold depending on the neighboring sequences (27). The smooth spread of values in Table 1 and the similarity of mean and median lead us to propose the median (0.76) as the best current value for the rate of spontaneous mutation in riboviruses generally. A similar value, 1.2, was recently obtained by applying the fundamentally different Bateman–Mukai analysis to data obtained with VSV (28). These values are very high in comparison to values in other organisms but were anticipated in classical studies of mutation in an RNA phage (15, 16) and have long been known to be generally high (29).

Bacteriophage φ6 has a segmented, double-stranded RNA genome and thus differs profoundly from the viruses in Table 1. Nevertheless, the φ6 mutation rate must be much higher than that of DNA-based microbes, because stocks accumulate about 0.5% temperature-sensitive mutations (30). Nonsense mutations in φ6 display revertant frequencies ≥10−4 in stocks where c ≈ 5 (L. Chao, personal communication). For φ6, G = 13,379 (31). Assuming negligible selection and T = 1.5, μg ≥ 0.13, a value compatible with the values shown in Table 1. Thus, the high ribovirus mutation rate seems to encompass both animal viruses and phages.

The viral particles emerging from individual infected cells contain occasional mutant clones descended from new mutations. Mutation in riboviruses should produce mutant clone size distributions very different from those characteristic of exponentially replicating chromosomes. In riboviruses, fewer mutations will occur in the first round of genome copying than in the second round, because fewer copying events occur in the first round. Therefore, a few clones will contain several mutants, whereas most clones will contain only one mutant. This prediction has already been verified for the single-stranded DNA phage φX174, where roughly 5 large clones and about 309 single mutants (clones of size 1) were observed; the uncertainties reflect probable coincidences of clones of size 1 and a few preexisting mutations producing large clones (23). In riboviruses, the mutant clone size distribution can be described in terms of the mutation rates characteristic of the first and second rounds of copying (μ1 and μ2, respectively) and the mean numbers of genomes produced per template in the first and second rounds (n1 and n2, respectively). Specifically, the first round contributes μ1n1 mutant clones of mean size n2; the second round contributes μn1n2 mutant clones of size 1; and the total virus progeny per cell is n1n2. These are experimentally resolvable parameters.

Because a single cycle of infection produces a mutant frequency twice that of the rate per genome replication, few progeny viruses escape mutation. In general, for 1.5c mutations distributed randomly among genomes, the mutation-free fraction of a population would be e−1.5c (0.22 for c = 1; 0.05 for c = 2; etc.). However, many or most mutations in riboviruses are deleterious, and selection against deleterious mutations will reduce both mutant frequency and virus yield even within a single cycle of infection. Their high mutation rate renders the riboviruses particularly vulnerable to the consequences of rate increases, and both poliovirus and VSV populations are extinguished by chemical mutagenesis sufficient to increase the rate by a mere 2.5-fold (32). Merely tripling the viral mutation rate, if this increase could be achieved without harming the host, could cure ribovirus infections. Conversely, the normal mutation rate does not seem to be limiting for adaptation (29, 33).

Another consequence of this high rate of mutation is that all but the most mild mutator mutations will be lethal. Mutation pressure alone is likely to generate many mutator mutations, and an analysis of the VSV polymerase gene, encompassing almost 0.6 of the genome, suggested considerable polymerase compositional variation within a population (34). Influenza virus populations seem to accumulate a high frequency (≈12%) of mutators, but these increase mutation rates only by 2- to 4-fold (35); stronger mutators probably die out rapidly. The strength of a VSV mutator (36) cannot be quantitated.

Because recombination can regenerate unmutated genomes, it can reduce the danger of a very high mutation rate. Crossing over is frequent among many riboviruses, and independent assortment of segmented genomes also occurs (30). Perhaps most importantly, however, riboviruses have high fecundity, with yields of 100–10,000 per infected cell, such that the product of yield times the proportion of mutation-free progeny tends to exceed unity.

Acknowledgments

We thank Lin Chao, Jim Crow, Dave Denhardt, Esteban Domingo, Dmitry Gordenin, Mike Resnick, Roel Schaaper, and Charlie Steinberg for their critical comments on evolving stages of this article.

Footnotes

    • ↵† To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: drake{at}niehs.nih.gov.

    • This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

    Abbreviation

    VSV,
    vesicular stomatitis virus
    • Received August 18, 1999.
    • Copyright © 1999, The National Academy of Sciences

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Barton N H,
      2. Charlesworth B
      (1998) Science 281:1986–1990, pmid:9748151.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Muller H J
      (1950) Am J Hum Genet 2:111–176, pmid:14771033.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Drake J W,
      2. Charlesworth B,
      3. Charlesworth D,
      4. Crow J F
      (1998) Genetics 148:1667–1686, pmid:9560386.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Holland J,
      2. Spindler K,
      3. Horodyski F,
      4. Grabau E,
      5. Nichol S,
      6. VandePol S
      (1982) Science 215:1577–1585, pmid:7041255.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Drake J W
      (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:4171–4175, pmid:8387212.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Luria S E,
      2. Delbrück M
      (1943) Genetics 28:491–511.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Drake J W
      (1991) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:7160–7164, pmid:1831267.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. de la Torre J C,
      2. Giachetti C,
      3. Semler B L,
      4. Holland J J
      (1992) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:2531–2535, pmid:1313561.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. de la Torre J C,
      2. Wimmer E,
      3. Holland J J
      (1990) J Virol 64:664–671, pmid:2153232.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Holland J J,
      2. de la Torre J C,
      3. Steinhauer D A,
      4. Clarke D,
      5. Duarte E,
      6. Domingo E
      (1989) J Virol 63:5030–5036, pmid:2479770.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Wang W,
      2. Lee W-M,
      3. Mosser A G,
      4. Rueckert R R
      (1998) J Virol 72:1210–1218, pmid:9445020.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Lee W-M,
      2. Wang W,
      3. Rueckert R R
      (1995) Virus Genes 9:177–181, pmid:7732663.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Schrag S J,
      2. Rota P A,
      3. Bellini W J
      (1999) J Virol 73:51–54, pmid:9847306.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Field B N,
      2. Knipe D M,
      3. Howley P M
      1. Griffin D E,
      2. Bellini W J
      (1996) in Field’s Virology, eds Field B N, Knipe D M, Howley P M(Lippincott–Raven, Philadelphia), 3rd Ed. pp 1267–1312.
    15. ↵
      1. Domingo E,
      2. Flavell R A,
      3. Weissmann C
      (1976) Gene 1:3–25, pmid:1052322.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Batschelet E,
      2. Domingo E,
      3. Weissmann C
      (1976) Gene 1:27–32, pmid:1052321.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Steinhauer D A,
      2. de la Torre J C,
      3. Holland J J
      (1989) J Virol 63:2063–2071, pmid:2539502.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      1. Ward C D,
      2. Flanegan J B
      (1992) J Virol 66:3784–3793, pmid:1316481.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Parvin J D,
      2. Moscona A,
      3. Pan W T,
      4. Leider J M,
      5. Palese P
      (1986) J Virol 59:377–383, pmid:3016304.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Sedivy J M,
      2. Capone J P,
      3. RajBhandary U L,
      4. Sharp P A
      (1987) Cell 50:379–389, pmid:3038332.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Dixon W J,
      2. Massey F J Jr
      (1969) Introduction to Statistical Analysis (McGraw–Hill, New York).
    22. ↵
      1. Luria S E
      (1951) Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 16:463–470, pmid:14942756.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Denhardt D T,
      2. Silver R B
      (1966) Virology 30:10–19, pmid:5911886.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Granoff A,
      2. Webster R G
      1. Denhardt D T
      (1999) in Encyclopedia of Virology, eds Granoff A, Webster R G(Academic, London), 2nd Ed. pp 274–281.
    25. ↵
      1. Loeb L A,
      2. Kunkel T A,
      3. Schaaper R M
      (1980) ICN-UCLA Symp Mol Cell Biol 19:735–751.
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Fersht A R,
      2. Knill-Jones J W
      (1983) J Mol Biol 165:633–654, pmid:6222197.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Ronen A,
      2. Rahat A
      (1976) Mutat Res 34:21–34, pmid:1250247.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Elena S F,
      2. Moya A
      (1999) J Evol Biol 12:1078–1088.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    29. ↵
      1. Domingo E,
      2. Holland J J
      (1997) Annu Rev Microbiol 51:151–178, pmid:9343347.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Chao L,
      2. Tran T T,
      3. Tran T T
      (1997) Genetics 147:953–959, pmid:9383044.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    31. ↵
      1. Gottlieb P,
      2. Metzger S,
      3. Romantschuk M,
      4. Carton J,
      5. Strassman J,
      6. Bamford D H,
      7. Kalkkinen N,
      8. Mindich L
      (1988) Virology 163:183–190, pmid:3347997.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Holland J J,
      2. Domingo E,
      3. de la Torre J C,
      4. Steinhauer D A
      (1990) J Virol 64:3960–3962, pmid:1695258.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Lee C H,
      2. Gilbertson D L,
      3. Novella I S,
      4. Huerta R,
      5. Domingo E,
      6. Holland J J
      (1997) J Virol 71:3636–3640, pmid:9094637.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Schubert M,
      2. Harmison G,
      3. Meier E
      (1984) J Virol 51:505–514, pmid:6086959.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Suárez P,
      2. Valcárcel J,
      3. Ortín J
      (1992) J Virol 66:2491–2949, pmid:1548773.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Pringle C R,
      2. Devine V,
      3. Wilkie M,
      4. Preston C M,
      5. Dolan A,
      6. McGeoch D J
      (1981) J Virol 39:377–389, pmid:6268829.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Mutation rates among RNA viruses
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Mutation rates among RNA viruses
    John W. Drake, John J. Holland
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 1999, 96 (24) 13910-13913; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Mutation rates among RNA viruses
    John W. Drake, John J. Holland
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 1999, 96 (24) 13910-13913; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.24.13910
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 96 (24)
    Table of Contents

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Theory
      • Calculations
      • Discussion
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • Abbreviation
      • References
    • Figures & SI
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
    Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
    Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
    Depiction of the sun's heliosphere with Voyager spacecraft at its edge.
    News Feature: Voyager still breaking barriers decades after launch
    Launched in 1977, Voyagers 1 and 2 are still helping to resolve past controversies even as they help spark a new one: the true shape of the heliosphere.
    Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
    Drop of water creates splash in a puddle.
    Journal Club: Heavy water tastes sweeter
    Heavy hydrogen makes heavy water more dense and raises its boiling point. It also appears to affect another characteristic long rumored: taste.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/sl_photo.
    Mouse fibroblast cells. Electron bifurcation reactions keep mammalian cells alive.
    Exploring electron bifurcation
    Jonathon Yuly, David Beratan, and Peng Zhang investigate how electron bifurcation reactions work.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Panda bear hanging in a tree
    How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
    A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
    Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
    • List of Issues

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Cozzarelli Prize
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates
    • FAQs
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights & Permissions
    • About
    • Contact

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490