Smoothed Bootstrap Aggregation for Assessing Selection Pressure at Amino Acid Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To detect positive selection at individual amino acid sites, most methods use an empirical Bayes approach. After parameters of a Markov process of codon evolution are estimated via maximum likelihood, they are passed to Bayes formula to compute the posterior probability that a site evolved under positive selection. A difficulty with this approach is that parameter estimates with large errors can negatively impact Bayesian classification. By assigning priors to some parameters, Bayes Empirical Bayes (BEB) mitigates this problem. However, as implemented, it imposes uniform priors, which causes it to be overly conservative in some cases. When standard regularity conditions are not met and parameter estimates are unstable, inference, even under BEB, can be negatively impacted. We present an alternative to BEB called smoothed bootstrap aggregation (SBA), which bootstraps site patterns from an alignment of protein coding DNA sequences to accommodate the uncertainty in the parameter estimates. We show that deriving the correction for parameter uncertainty from the data in hand, in combination with kernel smoothing techniques, improves site specific inference of positive selection. We compare BEB to SBA by simulation and real data analysis. Simulation results show that SBA balances accuracy and power at least as well as BEB, and when parameter estimates are unstable, the performance gap between BEB and SBA can widen in favor of SBA. SBA is applicable to a wide variety of other inference problems in molecular evolution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".