MIPhy: identify and quantify rapidly evolving members of large gene families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After transitioning to a new environment, species often exhibit rapid phenotypic innovation. One of the fastest mechanisms for this is duplication followed by specialization of existing genes. When this happens to a member of a gene family, it tends to leave a detectable phylogenetic signature of lineage-specific expansions and contractions. These can be identified by analyzing the gene family across several species and identifying patterns of gene duplication and loss that do not correlate with the known relationships between those species. This signature, termed phylogenetic instability, has been previously linked to adaptations that change the way an organism samples and responds to its environment; conversely, low phylogenetic instability has been previously linked to proteins with endogenous functions. With the increase in genome-level data, there is a need to identify and quantify phylogenetic instability. Here, we present Minimizing Instability in Phylogenetics (MIPhy), a tool that solves this problem by quantifying the incongruence of a gene’s evolutionary history. The motivation behind MIPhy was to produce a tool to aid in interpreting phylogenetic trees. It can predict which members of a gene family are under adaptive evolution, working only from a gene tree and the relationship between the species under consideration. While it does not conduct any estimation of positive selection—which is the typical indication of adaptive evolution—the results tend to agree. We demonstrate the usefulness of MIPhy by accurately predicting which members of the mammalian cytochrome P450 gene superfamily metabolize xenobiotics and which metabolize endogenous compounds. Our predictions correlate very well with known substrate specificities of the human enzymes. We also analyze the Caenorhabditis collagen gene family and use MIPhy to predict genes that produce an observable phenotype when knocked down in C. elegans , and show that our predictions correlate well with existing knowledge. The software can be downloaded and installed from https://github.com/dave-the-scientist/miphy and is also available as an online web tool at http://www.miphy.wasmuthlab.org .
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".