Identifying sites under positive selection with uncertain parameter estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Codon-based substitution models are routinely used to measure selective pressures acting on protein-coding genes. To this effect, the nonsynonymous to synonymous rate ratio (dN/dS = omega) is estimated. The proportion of amino-acid sites potentially under positive selection, as indicated by omega > 1, is inferred by fitting a probability distribution where some sites are permitted to have omega > 1. These sites are then inferred by means of an empirical Bayes or by a Bayes empirical Bayes approach that, respectively, ignores or accounts for sampling errors in maximum-likelihood estimates of the distribution used to infer the proportion of sites with omega > 1. Here, we extend a previous full-Bayes approach to include models with high power and low false-positive rates when inferring sites under positive selection. We propose some heuristics to alleviate the computational burden, and show that (i) full Bayes can be superior to empirical Bayes when analyzing a small data set or small simulated data, (ii) full Bayes has only a small advantage over Bayes empirical Bayes with our small test data, and (iii) Bayesian methods appear relatively insensitive to mild misspecifications of the random process generating adaptive evolution in our simulations, but in practice can prove extremely sensitive to model specification. We suggest that the codon model used to detect amino acids under selection should be carefully selected, for instance using Akaike information criterion (AIC).
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 | 0.012 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".