New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Codon Spell Check

Silent mutations are not so silent after all

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As any diplomat will attest, nuances in language can dramatically affect the success of communication. But because the idiom of human cells was assumed to be much more literal than that of whole people, a recent discovery surprised even the scientists who made it. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) identified a human protein that takes two distinct shapes depending on a subtle difference in its gene that should not make any difference at all. Their finding may explain variations in chemotherapy response among certain cancer patients and raises new questions concerning so-called silent mutations.

Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty and Michael M. Gottesman were examining a gene called MDR1, which is named for its association with multiple-drug resistance in tumor cells. Specifically, they looked at mutations called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in MDR1. Some did not change the amino acid sequence encoded by the gene, so the scientists assumed they could have no effect on the final protein. Still, those synonymous SNPs kept showing up in studies of cancer patients, sometimes seeming to influence drug response. "It drew our attention because there were so many reports, and often really contradicting each other," Kimchi-Sarfaty says, "so we started to explore."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe