How Do Variable Substitution Rates Influence Ka and Ks Calculations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ratio of nonsynonymous substitution rate (Ka) to synonymous substitution rate (Ks) is widely used as an indicator of selective pressure at sequence level among different species, and diverse mutation models have been incorporated into several computing methods. We have previously developed a new gamma-MYN method by capturing a key dynamic evolution trait of DNA nucleotide sequences, in consideration of varying mutation rates across sites. We now report a further improvement of NG, LWL, MLWL, LPB, MLPB, and YN methods based on an introduction of gamma distribution to illustrate the variation of raw mutation rate over sites. The novelty comes in two ways: (1) we incorporate an optimal gamma distribution shape parameter a into gamma-NG, gamma-LWL, gamma-MLWL, gamma-LPB, gamma-MLPB, and gamma-YN methods; (2) we investigate how variable substitution rates affect the methods that adopt different models as well as the interplay among four evolutional features with respect to Ka/Ks computations. Our results suggest that variable substitution rates over sites under negative selection exhibit an opposite effect on omega estimates compared with those under positive selection. We believe that the sensitivity of our new methods has been improved than that of their original methods under diverse conditions and it is advantageous to introduce novel parameters for Ka/Ks computation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".