Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30634908›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2019

Evaluating the usefulness of alignment filtering methods to reduce the impact of errors on evolutionary inferences.

Arnaud Di Franco, Raphaël Poujol, Denis Baurain, Hervé Philippe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing 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

81 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Arnaud Di FrancoStation d'Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale de Moulis, CNRS, Moulis, France.
Raphaël PoujolDépartement de Biochimie, Centre Robert-Cedergren, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Denis BaurainInBioS-PhytoSYSTEMS, Unité de Phylogénomique des Eucaryotes, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Hervé PhilippeStation d'Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale de Moulis, CNRS, Moulis, France. herve.philippe@sete.cnrs.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) are the starting point of molecular evolutionary analyses. Errors in MSAs generate a non-historical signal that can lead to incorrect inferences. Therefore, numerous efforts have been made to reduce the impact of alignment errors, by improving alignment algorithms and by developing methods to filter out poorly aligned regions. However, MSAs do not only contain alignment errors, but also primary sequence errors. Such errors may originate from sequencing errors, from assembly errors, or from erroneous structural annotations (such as incorrect intron/exon boundaries). Even though their existence is acknowledged, the impact of primary sequence errors on evolutionary inference is poorly characterized.

resultsIn a first step to fill this gap, we have developed a program called HmmCleaner, which detects and eliminates these errors from MSAs. It uses profile hidden Markov models (pHMM) to identify sequence segments that poorly fit their MSA and selectively removes them. We assessed its performances using > 700 amino-acid MSAs from prokaryotes and eukaryotes, in which we introduced several types of simulated primary sequence errors. The sensitivity of HmmCleaner towards simulated primary sequence errors was > 95%. In a second step, we compared the impact of segment filtering software (HmmCleaner and PREQUAL) relative to commonly used block-filtering software (BMGE and TrimAI) on evolutionary analyses. Using real data from vertebrates, we observed that segment-filtering methods improve the quality of evolutionary inference more than the currently used block-filtering methods. The formers were especially effective at improving branch length inferences, and at reducing false positive rate during detection of positive selection.

conclusionsSegment filtering methods such as HmmCleaner accurately detect simulated primary sequence errors. Our results suggest that these errors are more detrimental than alignment errors. However, they also show that stochastic (sampling) error is predominant in single-gene evolutionary inferences. Therefore, we argue that MSA filtering should focus on segment instead of block removal and that more studies are required to find the optimal balance between accuracy improvement and stochastic error increase brought by data removal.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularSequence AlignmentAlgorithmsAmino Acid SequenceConserved SequencePhylogenySoftwareLow similarity segmentsMultiple sequence alignmentPhylogenyPositive selectionPrimary sequence errorProfile hidden Markov models

Identifiers

PMID30634908
PMCPMC6330419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.