Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15503675

Modeling compositional heterogeneity.

Abstract

Compositional heterogeneity among lineages can compromise phylogenetic analyses, because models in common use assume compositionally homogeneous data. Models that can accommodate compositional heterogeneity with few extra parameters are described here, and used in two examples where the true tree is known with confidence. It is shown using likelihood ratio tests that adequate modeling of compositional heterogeneity can be achieved with few composition parameters, that the data may not need to be modelled with separate composition parameters for each branch in the tree. Tree searching and placement of composition vectors on the tree are done in a Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Assessment of fit of the model to the data is made in both maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian frameworks. In an ML framework, overall model fit is assessed using the Goldman-Cox test, and the fit of the composition implied by a (possibly heterogeneous) model to the composition of the data is assessed using a novel tree-and model-based composition fit test. In a Bayesian framework, overall model fit and composition fit are assessed using posterior predictive simulation. It is shown that when composition is not accommodated, then the model does not fit, and incorrect trees are found; but when composition is accommodated, the model then fits, and the known correct phylogenies are obtained.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter G Foster. 2004. Modeling compositional heterogeneity.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490445779

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Correlations between genomic GC levels and optimal growth temperatures: some comments.

Regarding the existence of any specific correlation between optimal growth temperature and genomic GC levels, Musto et al. [FEBS Lett. 573 (2004) 73] have recently performed analysis on 20 prokaryotic families and showed that in most of the families there exists a positive correlation between these two parameters. On the basis of these results they claimed that optimal growth temperature is one of the factors that influence genomic GC composition in prokaryotes. In a subsequent article, Marashi and Ghalanbor [Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 325 (2004) 381] have demonstrated that the correlation values change substantially when very few points in some of the families were excluded from the data set of Musto et al. [FEBS Lett. 573 (2004) 73]. But Marashi and Ghalanbor have not provided any reason behind this. The points excluded by Marashi and Ghalanbor are actually the outliers in the data set, which strongly affect the correlation coefficients. But the presence of outliers in large data set hardly had any effect on the correlation values. Marashi and Ghalanbor have excluded points from only those families that have small sample sizes and observed a substantial change in correlation coefficient values. Therefore, we argue that any conclusion drawn for a small sample size having outliers is always questionable. Although Musto's approach is a novel one, but to make any generalization one needs to be careful about the flawlessness in the data set.

Base Composition↗

Dynamic conformational states of DNA containing T.T or BrdU.T mispaired bases: wobble H-bond pairing versus cross-strand inter-atomic contacts.

The dynamic structure of 11-mer DNA duplexes of different sequences with or without homopyrimidine (T.T, or BrdU.T) mismatches was studied by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on a time scale from 200 ps to 1 ns. The conformational analysis suggests that in mismatched duplexes the formation of classical T.T wobble H-bonding pairing is nearest-neighbor sequence-dependent and, in most cases, three-centered H-bonds and numerous alternative close cross-strand interatomic contacts exist. Thus, in duplex W1, where the central triplet is 5'd(CTA).d(TTG), two wobble conformations W upward arrow (alphabeta) and W downward arrow (betaalpha) are formed and exchange rapidly at 300 K. In contrast, when the central triplet is 5'd(TTT).d(ATA) (W2 duplex) wobble conformations are rarely observed at 300 K, and the T.T mispair most often adopts a "twisted" conformation with one largely persistent normal H-bond, plus a stable cross-strand contact involving a T flanking base. However, at elevated temperature (400 K) the same W2 duplex shows frequent exchange between the two classical wobble conformations (alphabeta<-->betaalpha), as is in the case when the central triplet is 5'd(TBrdUT).d(ATA) (W3 duplex at 300 K). It is suggested that in the W2 sequence, restrictions due to thymine-methyl/pi interactions prevent the formation of wobble pairing and thermal activation energy, and/or the chemical replacement of T by BrdU are required in order for the T(BrdU).T mismatch to adopt and exchange between wobble conformations. The specific short and/or long-lived (double/triple) cross-strand dynamic interactions in W1, W2 and W3 duplexes are throughout characterized. These frequent atomic encounters exemplify possible inter-strand charge transfer pathways in the studied DNA molecules.

Base Composition↗