ArticlePeerJ2023
Data-specific substitution models improve protein-based phylogenetics.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances and opportunities for computational interrogation of plant proteins.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026Review
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
Calculating amino-acid substitution models that are specific for individual protein data sets is often difficult due to the computational burden of estimating large numbers of rate parameters. In this study, we tested the computational efficiency and accuracy of five methods used to estimate substitution models, namely Codeml, FastMG, IQ-TREE, P4 (maximum likelihood), and P4 (Bayesian inference). Data-specific substitution models were estimated from simulated alignments (with different lengths) that were generated from a known simulation model and simulation tree. Each of the resulting data-specific substitution models was used to calculate the maximum likelihood score of the simulation tree and simulated data that was used to calculate the model, and compared with the maximum likelihood scores of the known simulation model and simulation tree on the same simulated data. Additionally, the commonly-used empirical models, cpREV and WAG, were assessed similarly. Data-specific models performed better than the empirical models, which under-fitted the simulated alignments, had the highest difference to the simulation model maximum-likelihood score, clustered further from the simulation model in principal component analysis ordination, and inferred less accurate trees. Data-specific models and the simulation model shared statistically indistinguishable maximum-likelihood scores, indicating that the five methods were reasonably accurate at estimating substitution models by this measure. Nevertheless, tree statistics showed differences between optimal maximum likelihood trees. Unlike other model estimating methods, trees inferred using data-specific models generated with IQ-TREE and P4 (maximum likelihood) were not significantly different from the trees derived from the simulation model in each analysis, indicating that these two methods alone were the most accurate at estimating data-specific models. To show the benefits of using data-specific protein models several published data sets were reanalysed using IQ-TREE-estimated models. These newly estimated models were a better fit to the data than the empirical models that were used by the original authors, often inferred longer trees, and resulted in different tree topologies in more than half of the re-analysed data sets. The results of this study show that software availability and high computation burden are not limitations to generating better-fitting data-specific amino-acid substitution models for phylogenetic analyses.
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.