An Amino Acid Substitution-Selection Model Adjusts Residue Fitness to Improve Phylogenetic Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard protein phylogenetic models use fixed rate matrices of amino acid interchange derived from analyses of large databases. Differences between the stationary amino acid frequencies of these rate matrices from those of a data set of interest are typically adjusted for by matrix multiplication that converts the empirical rate matrix to an exchangeability matrix which is then postmultiplied by the amino acid frequencies in the alignment. The result is a time-reversible rate matrix with stationary amino acid frequencies equal to the data set frequencies. On the basis of population genetics principles, we develop an amino acid substitution-selection model that parameterizes the fitness of an amino acid as the logarithm of the ratio of the frequency of the amino acid to the frequency of the same amino acid under no selection. The model gives rise to a different sequence of matrix multiplications to convert an empirical rate matrix to one that has stationary amino acid frequencies equal to the data set frequencies. We incorporated the substitution-selection model with an improved amino acid class frequency mixture (cF) model to partially take into account site-specific amino acid frequencies in the phylogenetic models. We show that 1) the selection models fit data significantly better than corresponding models without selection for most of the 21 test data sets; 2) both cF and cF selection models favored the phylogenetic trees that were inferred under current sophisticated models and methods for three difficult phylogenetic problems (the positions of microsporidia and breviates in eukaryote phylogeny and the position of the root of the angiosperm tree); and 3) for data simulated under site-specific residue frequencies, the cF selection models estimated trees closer to the generating trees than a standard Г model or cF without selection. We also explored several ways of estimating amino acid frequencies under neutral evolution that are required for these selection models. By better modeling the amino acid substitution process, the cF selection models will be valuable for phylogenetic inference and evolutionary studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".