ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Robustness of ancestral sequence reconstruction to among-site evolutionary heterogeneity and epistasis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is typically performed using homogeneous evolutionary models, which assume that the same substitution propensities affect all sites and lineages. These assumptions are routinely violated: heterogeneous structural and functional constraints favor different amino acid states at different sites, and these constraints often change among lineages as epistatic substitutions accrue at other sites. To evaluate how realistic violations of the homogeneity assumption affect ASR, we developed site-specific substitution models and parameterized them using data from deep mutational scanning experiments on three protein families; we then used these models to perform ASR on the empirical alignments and on alignments simulated under heterogeneous conditions derived from the experiments. Extensive among-site and -lineage heterogeneity is present in these datasets, but the sequences reconstructed from empirical alignments are almost identical, irrespective of whether heterogeneous or homogeneous models are used for ASR. The rare differences occur primarily when phylogenetic signal is weak - at fast-evolving sites and nodes connected by long branches. When ASR is performed on simulated data, errors in the reconstructed sequences become more likely as branch lengths increase, but incorporating heterogeneity into the model does not improve accuracy. These data establish that ASR is robust to unincorporated realistic forms of evolutionary heterogeneity, because the primary determinant of ASR is phylogenetic signal, not the substitution model. The best way to improve accuracy is therefore not to develop more elaborate models but to apply ASR to densely sampled alignments that maximize phylogenetic signal at the nodes of interest.
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.