Cited by 51RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Correcting the Bias of Empirical Frequency Parameter Estimators in Codon Models

Open access
Kosakovsky Pond, Sergei, Delport, Wayne, Muse, Spencer V., Scheffler, Konrad·2010·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Markov models of codon substitution are powerful inferential tools for studying biological processes such as natural selection and preferences in amino acid substitution. The equilibrium character distributions of these models are almost always estimated using nucleotide frequencies observed in a sequence alignment, primarily as a matter of historical convention. In this note, we demonstrate that a popular class of such estimators are biased, and that this bias has an adverse effect on goodness of fit and estimates of substitution rates. We propose a "corrected" empirical estimator that begins with observed nucleotide counts, but accounts for the nucleotide composition of stop codons. We show via simulation that the corrected estimates outperform the de facto standard estimates not just by providing better estimates of the frequencies themselves, but also by leading to improved estimation of other parameters in the evolutionary models. On a curated collection of sequence alignments, our estimators show a significant improvement in goodness of fit compared to the approach. Maximum likelihood estimation of the frequency parameters appears to be warranted in many cases, albeit at a greater computational cost. Our results demonstrate that there is little justification, either statistical or computational, for continued use of the -style estimators.

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.pone.0011230

Cites

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?

  • An ! distribution can be thought of as an evolutionary fingerprint characterizing the evolutionary pattern of the gene, where a small subset of sites can have very large ! values even when the majority of sites evolved under strong purifying selection.

    “An !distribution can be thought of as an evolutionary fingerprint characterizing the evolutionary pattern of the gene, where a small subset of sites can have very large !values even when the majority of sites evolved under strong purifying selection (Kosakovsky Pond, Scheffler, et al. 2010).”

    From RELAX: Detecting Relaxed Selection in a Phylogenetic Framework (2015) · cites this paper as Kosakovsky Pond, Scheffler, et al. 2010

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

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [1]Anisimova M Kosiol C 2009 Investigating protein-coding sequence evolution with probabilistic codon substitution models. Mol Biol Evol 26 255 271 18922761
  2. [2]Delport W Scheffler K Seoighe C 2009 Models of coding sequence evolution. Brief Bioinform 10 97 109 18971241 PMC2638624
  3. [3]Muse SV Gaut BS 1994 A likelihood approach for comparing synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution rates, with application to the chloroplast genome. Mol Biol Evol 11 715 724 7968485
  4. [4]Goldman N Yang Z 1994 A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol 11 725 736 7968486
  5. [5]Seoighe C Ketwaroo F Pillay V Scheffler K Wood N 2007 A model of directional selection applied to the evolution of drug resistance in HIV-1. Mol Biol Evol 24 1025 1031 17272680
  6. [6]Kosakovsky Pond SL Poon AFY Leigh Brown AJ Frost SDW 2008 A maximum likelihood method for detecting directional evolution in protein sequences and its application to influenza a virus. Mol Biol Evol 25 1809 1824 18511426 PMC2515872
  7. [7]Lacerda M Scheffler K Seoighe C 2010 Epitope discovery with phylogenetic hidden Markov models. Mol Biol Evol PMC2857806 20089717
  8. [8]Kosakovsky Pond SL Frost SDW Muse SV 2005 HyPhy: hypothesis testing using phylogenies. Bioinformatics 21 676 9 15509596
  9. [9]Kosakovsky Pond SL Muse SV 2005 Site-to-site variation of synonymous substitution rates. Mol Biol Evol 22 2375 2385 16107593
  10. [10]Whelan S de Bakker PIW Quevillon E Rodriguez N Goldman N 2006 Pandit: an evolution-centric database of protein and associated nucleotide domains with inferred trees. Nucleic Acids Res 34 D327 31 16381879 PMC1347450
  11. [12]Kosiol C Holmes I Goldman N 2007 An empirical codon model for protein sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol 24 1464 1479 17400572
  12. [13]Conant GC Stadler PF 2009 Solvent exposure imparts similar selective pressures across a range of yeast proteins. Mol Biol Evol 26 1155 1161 19233963

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kosakovsky Pond, S., Delport, W., Muse, S. V., & Scheffler, K.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2010-07-30
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
e11230
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111472408
Cited by
51
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (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)
  • TUScholarShare (Temple University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0714991)
  • National Institutes of Health (AI47745, AI-36214)
  • Center for AIDS Research, University of Washington
  • University of California, San Diego
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI-47745, R21AI047745, R56AI047745, AI-36214, R01AI047745, P30AI036214)
  • Division of Mathematical Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
codon substitution models, estimation bias, stop codon, goodness of fit, substitution rate estimation, maximum likelihood estimation, amino acid substitutions
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Codon, Models, Statistical, Bias

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