Cited by 1,076Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Estimating the pattern of nucleotide substitution

Yang, Ziheng·1994·Journal of Molecular Evolution

Abstract

Knowledge of the pattern of nucleotide substitution is important both to our understanding of molecular sequence evolution and to reliable estimation of phylogenetic relationships. The method of parsimony analysis, which has been used to estimate substitution patterns in real sequences, has serious drawbacks and leads to results difficult to interpret. In this paper a model-based maximum likelihood approach is proposed for estimating substitution patterns in real sequences. Nucleotide substitution is assumed to follow a homogeneous Markov process, and the general reversible process model (REV) and the unrestricted model without the reversibility assumption are used. These models are also applied to examine the adequacy of the model of Hasegawa et al. (J. Mol. Evol. 1985;22:160-174) (HKY85). Two data sets are analyzed. For the psi eta-globin pseudogenes of six primate species, the REV models fits the data much better than HKY85, while, for a segment of mtDNA sequences from nine primates, REV cannot provide a significantly better fit than HKY85 when rate variation over sites is taken into account in the models. It is concluded that the use of the REV model in phylogenetic analysis can be recommended, especially for large data sets or for sequences with extreme substitution patterns, while HKY85 may be expected to provide a good approximation. The use of the unrestricted model does not appear to be worthwhile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00178256

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Models previously used to study animal phylogeny (WAG+G, LG+G, GTR+G, PF-schemes, CAT-GTR+G) fell short of adequately describing among-site amino acid preferences in both WhelanD20 and Chang datasets.

    “We showed that for both datasets, models that have previously been used to study the animal phylogeny fell short, to various degrees, of adequately describing among-site amino acid preferences”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Z.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Yang, Ziheng
Venue
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Published
1994-07
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
105-11
ISSN
  • 0022-2844 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1432
OpenAlex
W2026551295
Cited by
1,076
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 29
FWCI
5.27
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
nucleotide substitution patterns, substitution rate heterogeneity, Markov processes, model fit assessment, mitochondrial DNA, phylogenetic analysis
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, DNA, Mitochondrial, Biological Evolution, Globins, Humans, Markov Chains, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Primates, Probability, Pseudogenes, Genetic Variation

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