Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35789388›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2022

Consequences of Substitution Model Selection on Protein Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction.

Roberto Del Amparo, Miguel Arenas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Applications of ancestral sequence reconstruction for understanding the evolution of plant specialized metabolism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Topiary: Pruning the manual labor from ancestral sequence reconstruction.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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.

Roberto Del AmparoCINBIO, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Miguel ArenasCINBIO, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0516-2717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The selection of the best-fitting substitution model of molecular evolution is a traditional step for phylogenetic inferences, including ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR). However, a few recent studies suggested that applying this procedure does not affect the accuracy of phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Here, we revisited this debate topic by analyzing the influence of selection among substitution models of protein evolution, with focus on exchangeability matrices, on the accuracy of ASR using simulated and real data. We found that the selected best-fitting substitution model produces the most accurate ancestral sequences, especially if the data present large genetic diversity. Indeed, ancestral sequences reconstructed under substitution models with similar exchangeability matrices were similar, suggesting that if the selected best-fitting model cannot be used for the reconstruction, applying a model similar to the selected one is preferred. We conclude that selecting among substitution models of protein evolution is recommended for reconstructing accurate ancestral sequences.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEvolution, MolecularAmino Acid SequenceMutation, MissensePhylogenyProteinsProteinsancestral sequence reconstructionmolecular evolutionphylogeneticsprotein evolutionsubstitution model selectionsubstitution models of protein evolution

Identifiers

PMID35789388
PMCPMC9254009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.