Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 561

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Recombination on the Accuracy of the Likelihood Method for Detecting Positive Selection at Amino Acid Sites

Open access
Anisimova, Maria, Nielsen, Rasmus, Yang, Ziheng·2003·Genetics

Abstract

Maximum-likelihood methods based on models of codon substitution accounting for heterogeneous selective pressures across sites have proved to be powerful in detecting positive selection in protein-coding DNA sequences. Those methods are phylogeny based and do not account for the effects of recombination. When recombination occurs, such as in population data, no unique tree topology can describe the evolutionary history of the whole sequence. This violation of assumptions raises serious concerns about the likelihood method for detecting positive selection. Here we use computer simulation to evaluate the reliability of the likelihood-ratio test (LRT) for positive selection in the presence of recombination. We examine three tests based on different models of variable selective pressures among sites. Sequences are simulated using a coalescent model with recombination and analyzed using codon-based likelihood models ignoring recombination. We find that the LRT is robust to low levels of recombination (with fewer than three recombination events in the history of a sample of 10 sequences). However, at higher levels of recombination, the type I error rate can be as high as 90%, especially when the null model in the LRT is unrealistic, and the test often mistakes recombination as evidence for positive selection. The test that compares the more realistic models M7 (β) against M8 (β and ω) is more robust to recombination, where the null model M7 allows the positive selection pressure to vary between 0 and 1 (and so does not account for positive selection), and the alternative model M8 allows an additional discrete class with ω= dN/dS that could be estimated to be >1 (and thus accounts for positive selection). Identification of sites under positive selection by the empirical Bayes method appears to be less affected than the LRT by recombination.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/164.3.1229

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 561

Metadata

Authors
Anisimova, M., Nielsen, R., & Yang, Z.
Venue
Genetics
Published
2003-07-01
Volume
164
Issue
3
Pages
1229-1236
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2165892911
Cited by
561
References
40
FWCI
15.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Recombination on the Accuracy of the Likelihood Method for Detecting Positive Selection at Amino Acid Sites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/164.3.1229
The paper
Anisimova, M., Nielsen, R., & Yang, Z. (2003). Effect of Recombination on the Accuracy of the Likelihood Method for Detecting Positive Selection at Amino Acid Sites. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/164.3.1229

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.