Bayesian Comparisons of Codon Substitution Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, Muse and Gaut (MG) and Goldman and Yang (GY) proposed evolutionary models that recognize the coding structure of the nucleotide sequences under study, by defining a Markovian substitution process with a state space consisting of the 61 sense codons (assuming the universal genetic code). Several variations and extensions to their models have since been proposed, but no general and flexible framework for contrasting the relative performance of alternative approaches has yet been applied. Here, we compute Bayes factors to evaluate the relative merit of several MG and GY styles of codon substitution models, including recent extensions acknowledging heterogeneous nonsynonymous rates across sites, as well as selective effects inducing uneven amino acid or codon preferences. Our results on three real data sets support a logical model construction following the MG formulation, allowing for a flexible account of global amino acid or codon preferences, while maintaining distinct parameters governing overall nucleotide propensities. Through posterior predictive checks, we highlight the importance of such a parameterization. Altogether, the framework presented here suggests a broad modeling project in the MG style, stressing the importance of combining and contrasting available model formulations and grounding developments in a sound probabilistic paradigm.
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 | 0.033 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".