Cited by 105Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Paleontology StudiesEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

A Dirichlet process prior for estimating lineage-specific substitution rates

Open access
Heath, T. A., Holder, M. T., Huelsenbeck, J. P.·2012·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

We introduce a new model for relaxing the assumption of a strict molecular clock for use as a prior in Bayesian methods for divergence time estimation. Lineage-specific rates of substitution are modeled using a Dirichlet process prior (DPP), a type of stochastic process that assumes lineages of a phylogenetic tree are distributed into distinct rate classes. Under the Dirichlet process, the number of rate classes, assignment of branches to rate classes, and the rate value associated with each class are treated as random variables. The performance of this model was evaluated by conducting analyses on data sets simulated under a range of different models. We compared the Dirichlet process model with two alternative models for rate variation: the strict molecular clock and the independent rates model. Our results show that divergence time estimation under the DPP provides robust estimates of node ages and branch rates without significantly reducing power. Further analyses were conducted on a biological data set, and we provide examples of ways to summarize Markov chain Monte Carlo samples under this model.

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/msr255

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Our model is more specific in its goals than those implemented in more general phylogenetic packages.

    “Without doubt, our model is more specific in its goals than those implemented in more general phylogenetic packages (Drummond et al. 2006; Drummond and Suchard 2010; Heath et al. 2012; Ogilvie et al. 2017).”

    From Bayesian Detection of Convergent Rate Changes of Conserved Noncoding Elements on Phylogenetic Trees (2019) · cites this paper as Heath et al. 2012

    The DPP on Branch Rates section identifies a phylogenetic model implemented in the C++ program DPPDiv, so the paper supports the citation as an example of another implemented model. It does not establish that DPPDiv is a general phylogenetic package; that description is not supported for this citation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several existing relaxed clock models explicitly model substitution rate variation across phylogeny.

    “Several existing relaxed clock models (Drummond and Suchard 2010; Heath et al. 2012) explicitly model substitution rate variation across phylogeny.”

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: 5

  1. Gallager RG. 1963. Low-density parity check codes. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  2. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN,editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York: Academic Press. p. 21-123.
  3. Thorne JL, Kishino H. 2005. Estimation of divergence times from molecular sequence data. In: Nielsen R, editor. Statistical methods in molecular evolution. New York: Springer. p. 235-256.
  4. West M, M¨ uller P, Escobar MD. 1994. Hierarchical priors and mixture models, with application in regression and density estimation. In: Smith AFM, Freeman P, editors. Aspects of uncertainty: a tribute to D. V. Lindley. Chichester (UK): Wiley. p. 363-386.
  5. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. 1962. Molecular disease, evolution, and genetic heterogeneity. In: Kasha M, Pullman B, editors. Horizons in biochemistry. New York: Academic Press. p. 189-225.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heath, T. A., Holder, M. T., & Huelsenbeck, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Heath, T. A.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2011-11-02
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
939-955
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2130931762
Cited by
105
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01gm069801-09)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM-069801, GM069801, GM086887, R01GM086887)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
Dirichlet process prior, relaxed molecular clock, divergence time estimation, Bayesian phylogenetics, rate heterogeneity, node age estimation, Markov chain Monte Carlo
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Computer Simulation, Markov Chains, Models, Genetic, Monte Carlo Method, Phylogeny, Stochastic Processes, Evolution, Molecular, Mutation Rate

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