| 1. |
- Allen, James E., et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing the State of Substitution Models Describing Noncoding RNA Evolution
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Genome Biology and Evolution. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1759-6653. ; 6:1, s. 65-75
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Phylogenetic inference is widely used to investigate the relationships between homologous sequences. RNA molecules have played a key role in these studies because they are present throughout life and tend to evolve slowly. Phylogenetic inference has been shown to be dependent on the substitution model used. A wide range of models have been developed to describe RNA evolution, either with 16 states describing all possible canonical base pairs or with 7 states where the 10 mismatched nucleotides are reduced to a single state. Formal model selection has become a standard practice for choosing an inferential model and works well for comparing models of a specific type, such as comparisons within nucleotide models or within amino acid models. Model selection cannot function across different sized state spaces because the likelihoods are conditioned on different data. Here, we introduce statistical state-space projection methods that allow the direct comparison of likelihoods between nucleotide models and 7-state and 16-state RNA models. To demonstrate the general applicability of our new methods, we extract 287 RNA families from genomic alignments and perform model selection. We find that in 281/287 families, RNA models are selected in preference to nucleotide models, with simple 7-state RNA models selected for more conserved families with shorter stems and more complex 16-state RNA models selected for more divergent families with longer stems. Other factors, such as the function of the RNA molecule or the GC-content, have limited impact on model selection. Our models and model selection methods are freely available in the open-source software.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hossain, A. S. Md Mukarram, et al.
(författare)
-
Evidence of Statistical Inconsistency of Phylogenetic Methods in the Presence of Multiple Sequence Alignment Uncertainty
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Genome Biology and Evolution. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1759-6653. ; 7:8, s. 2102-2116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Evolutionary studies usually use a two-step process to investigate sequence data. Step one estimates a multiple sequence alignment (MSA) and step two applies phylogenetic methods to ask evolutionary questions of that MSA. Modern phylogenetic methods infer evolutionary parameters using maximum likelihood or Bayesian inference, mediated by a probabilistic substitution model that describes sequence change over a tree. The statistical properties of these methods mean that more data directly translates to an increased confidence in downstream results, providing the substitution model is adequate and the MSA is correct. Many studies have investigated the robustness of phylogenetic methods in the presence of substitution model misspecification, but few have examined the statistical properties of those methods when the MSA is unknown. This simulation study examines the statistical properties of the complete two-step process when inferring sequence divergence and the phylogenetic tree topology. Both nucleotide and amino acid analyses are negatively affected by the alignment step, both through inaccurate guide tree estimates and through overfitting to that guide tree. For many alignment tools these effects become more pronounced when additional sequences are added to the analysis. Nucleotide sequences are particularly susceptible, with MSA errors leading to statistical support for long-branch attraction artifacts, which are usually associated with gross substitution model misspecification. Amino acid MSAs are more robust, but do tend to arbitrarily resolve multifurcations in favor of the guide tree. No inference strategies produce consistently accurate estimates of divergence between sequences, although amino acid MSAs are again more accurate than their nucleotide counterparts. We conclude with some practical suggestions about how to limit the effect of MSA uncertainty on evolutionary inference.
|
|
