An Efficient Method for Exploring the Space of Gene Tree/Species Tree Reconciliations in a Probabilistic Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inferring an evolutionary scenario for a gene family is a fundamental problem with applications both in functional and evolutionary genomics. The gene tree/species tree reconciliation approach has been widely used to address this problem, but mostly in a discrete parsimony framework that aims at minimizing the number of gene duplications and/or gene losses. Recently, a probabilistic approach has been developed, based on the classical birth-and-death process, including efficient algorithms for computing posterior probabilities of reconciliations and orthology prediction. RESULTS: In previous work, we described an algorithm for exploring the whole space of gene tree/species tree reconciliations, that we adapt here to compute efficiently the posterior probability of such reconciliations. These posterior probabilities can be either computed exactly or approximated, depending on the reconciliation space size. We use this algorithm to analyze the probabilistic landscape of the space of reconciliations for a real data set of fungal gene families and several data sets of synthetic gene trees. CONCLUSION: The results of our simulations suggest that, with exact gene trees obtained by a simple birth-and-death process and realistic gene duplication/loss rates, a very small subset of all reconciliations needs to be explored in order to approximate very closely the posterior probability of the most likely reconciliations. For cases where the posterior probability mass is more evenly dispersed, our method allows to explore efficiently the required subspace of reconciliations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".