ArticleVirus evolution2020
Efficient inference, potential, and limitations of site-specific substitution models.
Article in Virus evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitochondrial Genome Evolution: The Influence of Partitioning, Calibration, and Gene Heterogeneity on Pleurodontan Substitution Rates.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- The mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 is highly variable between sites and is influenced by sequence context, genomic region, and RNA structure.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Reconstruction of Ancestral Protein Sequences Using Autoregressive Generative Models.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- The mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 is highly variable between sites and is influenced by sequence context, genomic region, and RNA structure.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Selection among site-dependent structurally constrained substitution models of protein evolution by approximate Bayesian computation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Reversions to consensus are positively selected in HIV-1 and bias substitution rate estimates.Virus evolution · 2023Article
- Site-Specific Amino Acid Distributions Follow a Universal Shape.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020Article
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
Natural selection imposes a complex filter on which variants persist in a population resulting in evolutionary patterns that vary greatly along the genome. Some sites evolve close to neutrally, while others are highly conserved, allow only specific states, or only change in concert with other sites. On one hand, such constraints on sequence evolution can be to infer biological function, one the other hand they need to be accounted for in phylogenetic reconstruction. Phylogenetic models often account for this complexity by partitioning sites into a small number of discrete classes with different rates and/or state preferences. Appropriate model complexity is typically determined by model selection procedures. Here, we present an efficient algorithm to estimate more complex models that allow for different preferences at every site and explore the accuracy at which such models can be estimated from simulated data. Our iterative approximate maximum likelihood scheme uses information in the data efficiently and accurately estimates site-specific preferences from large data sets with moderately diverged sequences and known topology. However, the joint estimation of site-specific rates, and site-specific preferences, and phylogenetic branch length can suffer from identifiability problems, while ignoring variation in preferences across sites results in branch length underestimates. Site-specific preferences estimated from large HIV
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.