Estimating mutation rates in low-replication experiments.

Since mutation rate is a key biological parameter, its proper estimation has received great attention for decades. However, instead of the mutation rate, many authors opt for reporting the average mutant frequency, a less meaningful quantity. This is because the standard methods to estimate the mutation rate, derived from the Luria and Delbrück's fluctuation analysis, ideally require high-replication experiments to be applied; a requirement often unattainable due to constraints of time, budget or sample availability. But the main problem with mutant frequency, apart from being less informative, is its poor reproducibility; an especially marked defect when the chosen average is the arithmetic mean. Several authors tried to avoid this by employing other averages (such as the median or the geometric mean) or discarding outliers, though as far as we know nobody has evaluated which method performs best under low-replication settings. Here we use computer simulations to compare the performance of different methods used in low-replication experiments (≤4 cultures). Besides the customary averages of mutant frequency, we also tested two well-known fluctuation methods. Contrary to common practice, our results support that fluctuation methods should be applied in such circumstances, as they perform as well as or better than any average of mutant frequency. In particular, experimentalists will benefit from using MSS maximum likelihood in low-replication experiments because it: (i) provides more reproducible results, (ii) allows for direct estimation of mutation rate and (iii) allows for the application of conventional statistics.