Evolutionary Models Accounting for Layers of Selection in Protein-Coding Genes and their Impact on the Inference of Positive Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selective forces acting on a protein-coding gene are commonly inferred using evolutionary codon models by contrasting the rate of nonsynonymous substitutions to the rate of synonymous substitutions. These models usually assume that the synonymous substitution rate, Ks, is homogenous across all sites, which is justified if synonymous sites are free from selection. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the DNA and RNA levels of protein-coding genes are subject to varying degrees of selective constraints due to various biological functions encoded at these levels. In this paper, we develop evolutionary models that account for these layers of selection by allowing for both among-site variability of substitution rates at the DNA/RNA level (which leads to Ks variability among protein-coding sites) and among-site variability of substitution rates at the protein level (Ka variability). These models are constructed so that positive selection is either allowed or not. This enables statistical testing of positive selection when variability at the DNA/RNA substitution rate is accounted for. Using this methodology, we show that variability of the baseline DNA/RNA substitution rate is a widespread phenomenon in coding sequence data of mammalian genomes, most likely reflecting varying degrees of selection at the DNA and RNA levels. Additionally, we use simulations to examine the impact that accounting for the variability of the baseline DNA/RNA substitution rate has on the inference of positive selection. Our results show that ignoring this variability results in a high rate of erroneous positive-selection inference. Our newly developed model, which accounts for this variability, does not suffer from this problem and hence provides a likelihood framework for the inference of positive selection on a background of variability in the baseline DNA/RNA substitution rate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".