Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38502220›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2024

Extant Sequence Reconstruction: The Accuracy of Ancestral Sequence Reconstructions Evaluated by Extant Sequence Cross-Validation.

Michael A Sennett, Douglas L Theobald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advances and opportunities for computational interrogation of plant proteins.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Michael A SennettDepartment of Biochemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 02453, USA.
Douglas L TheobaldDepartment of Biochemistry, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 02453, USA. dtheobald@brandeis.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2695-8343

Funding

Evolution of enzyme structure and function viewed at atomic resolutionR01GM096053 · NIGMS · BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY · PI Douglas Lowell Theobald · 2011 to 2026
$3.6M
Empirically testing the accuracy and bias of ancestral protein resurrection methodsR01GM132499 · NIGMS · BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY · PI THEOBALD, DOUGLAS LOWELL · 2019 to 2022
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096053NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM132499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is a phylogenetic method widely used to analyze the properties of ancient biomolecules and to elucidate mechanisms of molecular evolution. Despite its increasingly widespread application, the accuracy of ASR is currently unknown, as it is generally impossible to compare resurrected proteins to the true ancestors. Which evolutionary models are best for ASR? How accurate are the resulting inferences? Here we answer these questions using a cross-validation method to reconstruct each extant sequence in an alignment with ASR methodology, a method we term "extant sequence reconstruction" (ESR). We thus can evaluate the accuracy of ASR methodology by comparing ESR reconstructions to the corresponding known true sequences. We find that a common measure of the quality of a reconstructed sequence, the average probability, is indeed a good estimate of the fraction of correct amino acids when the evolutionary model is accurate or overparameterized. However, the average probability is a poor measure for comparing reconstructions from different models, because, surprisingly, a more accurate phylogenetic model often results in reconstructions with lower probability. While better (more predictive) models may produce reconstructions with lower sequence identity to the true sequences, better models nevertheless produce reconstructions that are more biophysically similar to true ancestors. In addition, we find that a large fraction of sequences sampled from the reconstruction distribution may have fewer errors than the single most probable (SMP) sequence reconstruction, despite the fact that the SMP has the lowest expected error of all possible sequences. Our results emphasize the importance of model selection for ASR and the usefulness of sampling sequence reconstructions for analyzing ancestral protein properties. ESR is a powerful method for validating the evolutionary models used for ASR and can be applied in practice to any phylogenetic analysis of real biological sequences. Most significantly, ESR uses ASR methodology to provide a general method by which the biophysical properties of resurrected proteins can be compared to the properties of the true protein.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionProteinsAmino AcidsEvolution, MolecularPhylogenyAmino AcidsProteinsAncestral sequence reconstruction (ASR)Cross-validationModel selectionProtein evolution

Identifiers

PMID38502220
PMCPMC10978691

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.