ArticleGenome biology and evolution2017
Standard Codon Substitution Models Overestimate Purifying Selection for Nonstationary Data.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- piqtree: a python package for seamless phylogenetic inference with IQ-TREE.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Nonsynonymous Polymorphism Counts in Bacterial Genomes: a Comparative Examination.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020Article
- Protein Evolution in the Flaviviruses.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020Article
- Genome-wide identification and characterization of the soybean SOD family during alkaline stress.PeerJ · 2020Article
- Repertoire-wide phylogenetic models of B cell molecular evolution reveal evolutionary signatures of aging and vaccination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of natural selection on protein-coding sequences is a key comparative genomics approach for de novo prediction of lineage-specific adaptations. Selective pressure is measured on a per-gene basis by comparing the rate of nonsynonymous substitutions to the rate of synonymous substitutions. All published codon substitution models have been time-reversible and thus assume that sequence composition does not change over time. We previously demonstrated that if time-reversible DNA substitution models are applied in the presence of changing sequence composition, the number of substitutions is systematically biased towards overestimation. We extend these findings to the case of codon substitution models and further demonstrate that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous rates of substitution tends to be underestimated over three data sets of mammals, vertebrates, and insects. Our basis for comparison is a nonstationary codon substitution model that allows sequence composition to change. Goodness-of-fit results demonstrate that our new model tends to fit the data better. Direct measurement of nonstationarity shows that bias in estimates of natural selection and genetic distance increases with the degree of violation of the stationarity assumption. Additionally, inferences drawn under time-reversible models are systematically affected by compositional divergence. As genomic sequences accumulate at an accelerating rate, the importance of accurate de novo estimation of natural selection increases. Our results establish that our new model provides a more robust perspective on this fundamental quantity.
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.