Cited by 1,785Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Evaluation of an Improved Branch-Site Likelihood Method for Detecting Positive Selection at the Molecular Level

Open access
Zhang, J.·2005·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

Detecting positive Darwinian selection at the DNA sequence level has been a subject of considerable interest. However, positive selection is difficult to detect because it often operates episodically on a few amino acid sites, and the signal may be masked by negative selection. Several methods have been developed to test positive selection that acts on given branches (branch methods) or on a subset of sites (site methods). Recently, Yang, Z., and R. Nielsen (2002. Codon-substitution models for detecting molecular adaptation at individual sites along specific lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:908-917) developed likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) based on branch-site models to detect positive selection that affects a small number of sites along prespecified lineages. However, computer simulations suggested that the tests were sensitive to the model assumptions and were unable to distinguish between relaxation of selective constraint and positive selection (Zhang, J. 2004. Frequent false detection of positive selection by the likelihood method with branch-site models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1332-1339). Here, we describe a modified branch-site model and use it to construct two LRTs, called branch-site tests 1 and 2. We applied the new tests to reanalyze several real data sets and used computer simulation to examine the performance of the two tests by examining their false-positive rate, power, and robustness. We found that test 1 was unable to distinguish relaxed constraint from positive selection affecting the lineages of interest, while test 2 had acceptable false-positive rates and appeared robust against violations of model assumptions. As test 2 is a direct test of positive selection on the lineages of interest, it is referred to as the branch-site test of positive selection and is recommended for use in real data analysis. The test appeared conservative overall, but exhibited better power in detecting positive selection than the branch-based test. Bayes empirical Bayes identification of amino acid sites under positive selection along the foreground branches was found to be reliable, but lacked power.

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/molbev/msi237

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]5. Nei, M. and S. Kumar. 2000. Molecular evolution and phyloge- netics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, J.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2005-08-24
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
2472-2479
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2097977090
Cited by
1,785
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 100 · 2015: 91 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 106 · 2012: 97
FWCI
30.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0201037)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS 0201037, DMS/NIGMS-0201037, GM-0201037)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • 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
Keywords
positive selection, branch-site model, likelihood ratio test, relaxed selection, codon substitution models, false positive rate, statistical power, model robustness, episodic selection, protein evolution
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Codon, Computer Simulation, Models, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Likelihood Functions, Evolution, Molecular

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