Cited by 736Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution

Goldman, Nick·1993·Journal of Molecular Evolution

Abstract

Penny et al. have written that "The most fundamental criterion for a scientific method is that the data must, in principle, be able to reject the model. Hardly any [phylogenetic] tree-reconstruction methods meet this simple requirement." The ability to reject models is of such great importance because the results of all phylogenetic analyses depend on their underlying models--to have confidence in the inferences, it is necessary to have confidence in the models. In this paper, a test statistic suggested by Cox is employed to test the adequacy of some statistical models of DNA sequence evolution used in the phylogenetic inference method introduced by Felsenstein. Monte Carlo simulations are used to assess significance levels. The resulting statistical tests provide an objective and very general assessment of all the components of a DNA substitution model; more specific versions of the test are devised to test individual components of a model. In all cases, the new analyses have the additional advantage that values of phylogenetic parameters do not have to be assumed in order to perform the tests.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00166252

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An adequate modeling of the evolutionary process that generated the data is fundamental to the recovery of accurate phylogenies.

    “An adequate modeling of the evolutionary process that generated the data is fundamental to the recovery of accurate phylogenies [16-20].”
  • If the best-fitting model does not describe the evolutionary process that generated the data adequately, there can still be a high probability of recovering a tree with relationships representing systematic error.

    “Yet, if the best-fitting model does not describe the evolutionary process that generated the data adequately, there can still be a high probability of recovering a tree with relationships representing systematic error [16-20].”
  • Porifera-sister better represents the phylogenetic signal in the data.

    “As phylogenetic methods are less likely to recover artifactual topologies when the models of evolution moreadequatelydescribethedata[16-20],weconcludethatPorifera-sister better represents the phylogenetic signal in the data.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldman, N.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Goldman, Nick
Venue
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Published
1993-02
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
182-198
ISSN
  • 0022-2844 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1432
OpenAlex
W2162250327
Cited by
736
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
model adequacy testing, phylogenetic inference, DNA sequence evolution, model rejection
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, DNA, Biological Evolution, Globins, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Primates, Pseudogenes, RNA, Statistics as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review