That reading depends at least in part on the full interpretation of such like,
&14.2-The Molecular basis of mutation (Whitehouse Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity p228) "In order to understand the aminoacid code, it is essential to know in chemical terms the nature of the changes in DNA caused by mutation. Watson and Crick (1953b) had suggested that mutation might be due to a base in DNA occasionally occurring in one of its less likely tautomeric forms (tautomerism is the wandering of a mobile hydrogen atom from one multivalent atom to a neighbouring one within a molecule. Tautomeric forms of a molecule are usually in dynamic equilibrium with one another.), so that at replication the wrong base is inserted at this position in the complementary nucleotide chain."
except that in this thread Rei said (if mutation = error) and this OPENS up the details (in the EvC post, for instance, oscillation of Percy and Ipetrich etc., on what is the exact analogy of DNA and Computation) in quote connnect context such as
&14.2p232 "However, Brenner, Barnett, Crick and Orgel (1961) postulated that proflavin causes mutation by the insertion or deletion of one of one or more base-pairs in the DNA, and not by transversion as Fresse suggested. Part of their evidence for this was that proflavin-induced mutants appeared completely to lack the normal activity of the gene, whereas mutants produced by other mutagens were often 'leaky', that is, showed some growth on strain K of the host (see &13.4)."
as AN ERROR in the age we are discussing as well. So I would not say "exactly". I may be wrong but you may have thought of DNA caused mutation not mutation caused DNA? Even if I am wrong it would still be content-wrong to say exactly but then we would have much more than a tread in this tissue at issue.