Likelihood-Based Clustering (LiBaC) for Codon Models, a Method for Grouping Sites according to Similarities in the Underlying Process of Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of codon evolution are useful for investigating the strength and direction of natural selection via a parameter for the nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratio (omega = d(N)/d(S)). Different codon models are available to account for diversity of the evolutionary patterns among sites. Codon models that specify data partitions as fixed effects allow the most evolutionary diversity among sites but require that site partitions are a priori identifiable. Models that use a parametric distribution to express the variability in the omega ratio across site do not require a priori partitioning of sites, but they permit less among-site diversity in the evolutionary process. Simulation studies presented in this paper indicate that differences among sites in estimates of omega under an overly simplistic analytical model can reflect more than just natural selection pressure. We also find that the classic likelihood ratio tests for positive selection have a high false-positive rate in some situations. In this paper, we developed a new method for assigning codon sites into groups where each group has a different model, and the likelihood over all sites is maximized. The method, called likelihood-based clustering (LiBaC), can be viewed as a generalization of the family of model-based clustering approaches to models of codon evolution. We report the performance of several LiBaC-based methods, and selected alternative methods, over a wide variety of scenarios. We find that LiBaC, under an appropriate model, can provide reliable parameter estimates when the process of evolution is very heterogeneous among groups of sites. Certain types of proteins, such as transmembrane proteins, are expected to exhibit such heterogeneity. A survey of genes encoding transmembrane proteins suggests that overly simplistic models could be leading to false signal for positive selection among such genes. In these cases, LiBaC-based methods offer an important addition to a "toolbox" of methods thereby helping to uncover robust evidence for the action of positive selection.
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 | 0.000 | 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".