Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27535929›Full record

ArticleGenetics2016

A Comparison of One-Rate and Two-Rate Inference Frameworks for Site-Specific dN/dS Estimation.

Stephanie J Spielman, Suyang Wan, Claus O Wilke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Stephanie J SpielmanDepartment of Integrative Biology, Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, and Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 stephanie.spielman@gmail.com.
Suyang WanSchool of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
Claus O WilkeDepartment of Integrative Biology, Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, and Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712.

Funding

The biophysical basis of translational selectionR01GM088344 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN, WILKE, CLAUS O · 2009 to 2023
$3.5M
Identifying Mutations that Promote Microbial EvolvabilityK99GM087550 · NIGMS · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN · 2009 to 2010
$180k
Software development and application of a simulation framework for protein evolutionF31GM113622 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI SPIELMAN, STEPHANIE J · 2015 to 2015
$41k
NIEHS NIH HHS 27398C0007NIGMS NIH HHS F31 GM113622NIGMS NIH HHS K99 GM087550NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two broad paradigms exist for inferring [Formula: see text] the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution rates, from coding sequences: (i) a one-rate approach, where [Formula: see text] is represented with a single parameter, or (ii) a two-rate approach, where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are estimated separately. The performances of these two approaches have been well studied in the specific context of proper model specification, i.e., when the inference model matches the simulation model. By contrast, the relative performances of one-rate vs. two-rate parameterizations when applied to data generated according to a different mechanism remain unclear. Here, we compare the relative merits of one-rate and two-rate approaches in the specific context of model misspecification by simulating alignments with mutation-selection models rather than with [Formula: see text]-based models. We find that one-rate frameworks generally infer more accurate [Formula: see text] point estimates, even when [Formula: see text] varies among sites. In other words, modeling [Formula: see text] variation may substantially reduce accuracy of [Formula: see text] point estimates. These results appear to depend on the selective constraint operating at a given site. For sites under strong purifying selection ([Formula: see text]), one-rate and two-rate models show comparable performances. However, one-rate models significantly outperform two-rate models for sites under moderate-to-weak purifying selection. We attribute this distinction to the fact that, for these more quickly evolving sites, a given substitution is more likely to be nonsynonymous than synonymous. The data will therefore be relatively enriched for nonsynonymous changes, and modeling [Formula: see text] contributes excessive noise to [Formula: see text] estimates. We additionally find that high levels of divergence among sequences, rather than the number of sequences in the alignment, are more critical for obtaining precise point estimates.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularPhylogenySelection, GeneticAmino Acid SubstitutionComputer SimulationGenetic VariationMutationSequence AlignmentdN/dSevolutionary ratemolecular evolutionmutation–selection modelssequence simulation

Identifiers

PMID27535929
PMCPMC5068842

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.