Evaluation of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Methods to Infer Nonstationary Patterns of Nucleotide Substitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inference of gene sequences in ancestral species has been widely used to test hypotheses concerning the process of molecular sequence evolution. However, the approach may produce spurious results, mainly because using the single best reconstruction while ignoring the suboptimal ones creates systematic biases. Here we implement methods to correct for such biases and use computer simulation to evaluate their performance when the substitution process is nonstationary. The methods we evaluated include parsimony and likelihood using the single best reconstruction (SBR), averaging over reconstructions weighted by the posterior probabilities (AWP), and a new method called expected Markov counting (EMC) that produces maximum-likelihood estimates of substitution counts for any branch under a nonstationary Markov model. We simulated base composition evolution on a phylogeny for six species, with different selective pressures on G+C content among lineages, and compared the counts of nucleotide substitutions recorded during simulation with the inference by different methods. We found that large systematic biases resulted from (i) the use of parsimony or likelihood with SBR, (ii) the use of a stationary model when the substitution process is nonstationary, and (iii) the use of the Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano (HKY) model, which is too simple to adequately describe the substitution process. The nonstationary general time reversible (GTR) model, used with AWP or EMC, accurately recovered the substitution counts, even in cases of complex parameter fluctuations. We discuss model complexity and the compromise between bias and variance and suggest that the new methods may be useful for studying complex patterns of nucleotide substitution in large genomic data sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".