Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29311320›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Power law tails in phylogenetic systems.

Chongli Qin, Lucy J Colwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Is Novelty Predictable?Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024
    Review
  7. An evolution-based framework for describing human gut bacteria.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Chongli QinDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom.
Lucy J ColwellDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom ljc37@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Covariance analysis of protein sequence alignments uses coevolving pairs of sequence positions to predict features of protein structure and function. However, current methods ignore the phylogenetic relationships between sequences, potentially corrupting the identification of covarying positions. Here, we use random matrix theory to demonstrate the existence of a power law tail that distinguishes the spectrum of covariance caused by phylogeny from that caused by structural interactions. The power law is essentially independent of the phylogenetic tree topology, depending on just two parameters-the sequence length and the average branch length. We demonstrate that these power law tails are ubiquitous in the large protein sequence alignments used to predict contacts in 3D structure, as predicted by our theory. This suggests that to decouple phylogenetic effects from the interactions between sequence distal sites that control biological function, it is necessary to remove or down-weight the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix with largest eigenvalues. We confirm that truncating these eigenvectors improves contact prediction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEvolution, MolecularModels, TheoreticalMultivariate AnalysisPhylogenyProteinsSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, ProteinProteinsphylogenypower lawproteinsequence covariancestructure prediction

Identifiers

PMID29311320
PMCPMC5789915

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.