The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy and Power of the Likelihood Ratio Test in Detecting Adaptive Molecular Evolution
Open accessAbstract
The selective pressure at the protein level is usually measured by the nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratio (omega = dN/dS), with omega < 1, omega = 1, and omega > 1 indicating purifying (or negative) selection, neutral evolution, and diversifying (or positive) selection, respectively. The omega ratio is commonly calculated as an average over sites. As every functional protein has some amino acid sites under selective constraints, averaging rates across sites leads to low power to detect positive selection. Recently developed models of codon substitution allow the omega ratio to vary among sites and appear to be powerful in detecting positive selection in empirical data analysis. In this study, we used computer simulation to investigate the accuracy and power of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) in detecting positive selection at amino acid sites. The test compares two nested models: one that allows for sites under positive selection (with omega > 1), and another that does not, with the chi2 distribution used for significance testing. We found that use of the chi(2) distribution makes the test conservative, especially when the data contain very short and highly similar sequences. Nevertheless, the LRT is powerful. Although the power can be low with only 5 or 6 sequences in the data, it was nearly 100% in data sets of 17 sequences. Sequence length, sequence divergence, and the strength of positive selection also were found to affect the power of the LRT. The exact distribution assumed for the omega ratio over sites was found not to affect the effectiveness of the LRT.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences.
(1994) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040153 · Cited by 1,960
Self-citationStatistical tests of models of DNA substitution
Goldman, N. (1993) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf00166252 · Cited by 736
Cited by
Guindon, S., Dufayard, J.-F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., & Gascuel, O. (2010) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · Cited by 18,376
Self-citationPAML 4: Phylogenetic Analysis by Maximum Likelihood
Yang, Z. (2007) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msm088 · Cited by 13,879
Self-citationMolecular Signatures of Natural Selection
Nielsen, R. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.112420 · Cited by 1,641
Yang, Z., & Nielsen, R. (2002) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004148 · Cited by 1,374
Self-citationA Recent Polyploidy Superimposed on Older Large-Scale Duplications in the Arabidopsis Genome
Blanc, G., Hokamp, K., & Wolfe, K. H. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.751803 · Cited by 724
Metadata
- Authors
- Anisimova, M., Bielawski, J. P., & Yang, Z.
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1585-1592
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2057456873
- Cited by
- 736
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.87
- 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: Accuracy and Power of the Likelihood Ratio Test in Detecting Adaptive Molecular Evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003945
- The paper
- Anisimova, M., Bielawski, J. P., & Yang, Z. (2001). Accuracy and Power of the Likelihood Ratio Test in Detecting Adaptive Molecular Evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003945
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.