259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19243489)
1. Survival of the steepest: hypersensitivity to mutations as an adaptation to soft selection.
Archetti M
J Evol Biol; 2009 Apr; 22(4):740-50. PubMed ID: 19243489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest.
Wilke CO; Wang JL; Ofria C; Lenski RE; Adami C
Nature; 2001 Jul; 412(6844):331-3. PubMed ID: 11460163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Simple quasispecies models for the survival-of-the-flattest effect: The role of space.
Sardanyés J; Elena SF; Solé RV
J Theor Biol; 2008 Feb; 250(3):560-8. PubMed ID: 18054366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genetic robustness and selection at the protein level for synonymous codons.
Archetti M
J Evol Biol; 2006 Mar; 19(2):353-65. PubMed ID: 16599911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mutation and selection within the individual.
Otto SP; Hastings IM
Genetica; 1998; 102-103(1-6):507-24. PubMed ID: 9766963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations.
Keightley PD; Otto SP
Nature; 2006 Sep; 443(7107):89-92. PubMed ID: 16957730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adaptive evolution on neutral networks.
Wilke CO
Bull Math Biol; 2001 Jul; 63(4):715-30. PubMed ID: 11497165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fitness effects of beneficial mutations: the mutational landscape model in experimental evolution.
Betancourt AJ; Bollback JP
Curr Opin Genet Dev; 2006 Dec; 16(6):618-23. PubMed ID: 17055718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?
Kondrashov AS
J Theor Biol; 1995 Aug; 175(4):583-94. PubMed ID: 7475094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The adaptation rate of asexuals: deleterious mutations, clonal interference and population bottlenecks.
Campos PR; Wahl LM
Evolution; 2010 Jul; 64(7):1973-83. PubMed ID: 20199567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations in Fisher's geometric model of adaptation.
Orr HA
J Theor Biol; 2006 Jan; 238(2):279-85. PubMed ID: 15990119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Environmental heterogeneity enhances clonal interference.
Campos PR; Neto PS; de Oliveira VM; Gordo I
Evolution; 2008 Jun; 62(6):1390-9. PubMed ID: 18363863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evolution: natural selection in the evolution of humans and chimps.
Ellegren H
Curr Biol; 2005 Nov; 15(22):R919-22. PubMed ID: 16303548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The McDonald-Kreitman test and slightly deleterious mutations.
Charlesworth J; Eyre-Walker A
Mol Biol Evol; 2008 Jun; 25(6):1007-15. PubMed ID: 18195052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The role of deleterious mutations in allopatric speciation.
Shpak M
Evolution; 2005 Jul; 59(7):1389-99. PubMed ID: 16153025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Estimation of the upper limit of the mutation rate and mean heterozygous effect of deleterious mutations.
Caballero A
Genet Res; 2006 Dec; 88(3):137-41. PubMed ID: 17371608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Recombination and the evolution of mutational robustness.
Gardner A; Kalinka AT
J Theor Biol; 2006 Aug; 241(4):707-15. PubMed ID: 16487979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Epistatic buffering of fitness loss in yeast double deletion strains.
Jasnos L; Korona R
Nat Genet; 2007 Apr; 39(4):550-4. PubMed ID: 17322879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mutational reversions during adaptive protein evolution.
DePristo MA; Hartl DL; Weinreich DM
Mol Biol Evol; 2007 Aug; 24(8):1608-10. PubMed ID: 17556755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Monte Carlo simulation of genome viability with paralog replacement.
Cebrat S; Stauffer D
J Appl Genet; 2002; 43(3):391-5. PubMed ID: 12177529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
