Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11139520›Full record

ArticleGenetics2001

RNA sequence evolution with secondary structure constraints: comparison of substitution rate models using maximum-likelihood methods.

N J Savill, D C Hoyle, P G Higgs

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Principles ofJournal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Structure-Based GC Investigation Sheds New Light on ITS2 Evolution inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Phylogenomics of strongylocentrotid sea urchins.BMC evolutionary biology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

N J SavillSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT, United Kingdom.
D C Hoyle
P G Higgs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We test models for the evolution of helical regions of RNA sequences, where the base pairing constraint leads to correlated compensatory substitutions occurring on either side of the pair. These models are of three types: 6-state models include only the four Watson-Crick pairs plus GU and UG; 7-state models include a single mismatch state that combines all of the 10 possible mismatches; 16-state models treat all mismatch states separately. We analyzed a set of eubacterial ribosomal RNA sequences with a well-established phylogenetic tree structure. For each model, the maximum-likelihood values of the parameters were obtained. The models were compared using the Akaike information criterion, the likelihood-ratio test, and Cox's test. With a high significance level, models that permit a nonzero rate of double substitutions performed better than those that assume zero double substitution rate. Some models assume symmetry between GC and CG, between AU and UA, and between GU and UG. Models that relaxed this symmetry assumption performed slightly better, but the tests did not all agree on the significance level. The most general time-reversible model significantly outperformed any of the simplifications. We consider the relative merits of all these models for molecular phylogenetics.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularModels, GeneticBase PairingLikelihood FunctionsMutationNucleic Acid ConformationPhylogenyProportional Hazards ModelsRNARNA

Identifiers

PMID11139520
PMCPMC1461489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.