ArticleGenetics2016
A Comparison of One-Rate and Two-Rate Inference Frameworks for Site-Specific dN/dS Estimation.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insertions and Deletions: Computational Methods, Evolutionary Dynamics, and Biological Applications.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Review
- Review
- Co-expression network analyses of anthocyanin biosynthesis genes in Ruellia (Wild Petunias; Acanthaceae).BMC ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Relative Model Fit Does Not Predict Topological Accuracy in Single-Gene Protein Phylogenetics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Large-Scale Comparative Analysis of Codon Models Accounting for Protein and Nucleotide Selection.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Improved inference of site-specific positive selection under a generalized parametric codon model when there are multinucleotide mutations and multiple nonsynonymous rates.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Article
- Identification of positive selection in genes is greatly improved by using experimentally informed site-specific models.Biology direct · 2017Article
- Measuring evolutionary rates of proteins in a structural context.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Calculating site-specific evolutionary rates at the amino-acid or codon level yields similar rate estimates.PeerJ · 2017Article
- Review
- Extensively Parameterized Mutation-Selection Models Reliably Capture Site-Specific Selective Constraint.Molecular biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Sequence amplification via cell passaging creates spurious signals of positive adaptation in influenza virus H3N2 hemagglutinin.Virus evolution · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.