Cited by 1,811Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic diversity and population structure

Detecting Individual Sites Subject to Episodic Diversifying Selection

Open access
Murrell, Ben, Wertheim, Joel O., Moola, Sasha, Weighill, Thomas, Scheffler, Konrad, Kosakovsky Pond, Sergei L.·2012·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

The imprint of natural selection on protein coding genes is often difficult to identify because selection is frequently transient or episodic, i.e. it affects only a subset of lineages. Existing computational techniques, which are designed to identify sites subject to pervasive selection, may fail to recognize sites where selection is episodic: a large proportion of positively selected sites. We present a mixed effects model of evolution (MEME) that is capable of identifying instances of both episodic and pervasive positive selection at the level of an individual site. Using empirical and simulated data, we demonstrate the superior performance of MEME over older models under a broad range of scenarios. We find that episodic selection is widespread and conclude that the number of sites experiencing positive selection may have been vastly underestimated.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002764

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Positively selected sites were identified using two different methods: BEB from MA with a cutoff of 0.90 and MEME with the default cutoff of 0.1.

    “Positively selected sites were identified using two different methods: the Bayes Empirical Bayes (BEB) analysis from MA (with a cutoff of 0.90) and the Mixed Effects Model of Evolution (MEME) (with the default cutoff of 0.1)34.”

    From Distinct selective forces and Neanderthal introgression shaped genetic diversity at genes involved in neurodevelopmental disorders (2017) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Methods section, “The MEME test for episodic diversifying selection” (page unavailable), describes MEME as a method for identifying sites under positive selection. Our copy does not establish a default MEME cutoff of 0.1 or describe the cited sentence’s BEB analysis from MA with a 0.90 cutoff. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The partitioned lineages test can be misleading because estimates of ! can be increased by processes such as intensification of positive selection when selective pressures vary both along branches and sites.

    “However, this test can be misleading because estimates of ! can be increased by processes such as intensification of positive selection when selective pressures vary both along branches and sites (Murrell et al. 2012).”

    From RELAX: Detecting Relaxed Selection in a Phylogenetic Framework (2015) · cites this paper as Murrell et al. 2012

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says tests that assume selection is constant across lineages can miss episodic positive selection, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes positive selection on some branches being masked by purifying selection on others. These passages support the general warning that varying selective pressures can mislead a test, but they do not say that the partitioned lineages test yields increased ω estimates because positive selection intensifies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Standard methods for estimating the strength and extent of purifying or positive selection from molecular sequence data are not suitable for detecting relaxed selection because they lack power and can mistake an increase in the intensity of positive selection for relaxation of both purifying and positive selection.

    “Standard methods for estimating the strength and extent of purifying or positive selection from molecular sequence data are not suitable for detecting relaxed selection, because they lack power and can mistake an increase in the intensity of positive selection for relaxation of both purifying and positive selection.”

    From RELAX: Detecting Relaxed Selection in a Phylogenetic Framework (2015) · cites this paper as Murrell et al. 2012

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Positively selected sites along the mammalian or sauropsidan branches were considered only if they were also detected by the Mixed Effects Model of Evolution (MEME) method.

    “To be conservative, we considered as positively selected only sites also detected by the Mixed Effects Model of Evolution (MEME) method34.”
  • Branch-level resolution vastly increased the detectable instances of positive selection.

    “This development vastly increased the detectable instances of positive selection (Murrell et al. 2012).”

    From RELAX: Detecting Relaxed Selection in a Phylogenetic Framework (2015) · cites this paper as Murrell et al. 2012

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murrell, B., Wertheim, J. O., Moola, S., Weighill, T., Scheffler, K., & Kosakovsky Pond, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e1002764
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2118982822
Cited by
1,811
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 147 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 169 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 161 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 172 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 99 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 9
FWCI
49.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TUScholarShare (Temple University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0714991)
  • European Commission
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (AI47745, AI74621, AI-36214, AI57167, GM093939)
  • Center for AIDS Research, University of Washington
  • University of California, San Diego
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM093939, R01GM093939)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI057167, AI-74621, AI-47745, AI57167, R21AI047745, AI 43638, R24AI106039, R56AI047745, AI-36214, R01AI047745, U01AI043638, P01AI074621, P30AI036214, T32AI007384)
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 › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
episodic selection, positive selection, memes, protein-coding genes, natural selection
MeSH terms
Amino Acids, Animals, Computer Simulation, Models, Theoretical, Phylogeny, Rhodopsin, Selection, Genetic, Vertebrates, Open Reading Frames, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology

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