A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1095-1109

  Lartillot, Nicolas ^a   Philippe, Hervé ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Amino acid replacement; Bayes; Bayes factor; Dirichlet process mixtures; Phylogeny; Posterior predictive resampling

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CAT MODEL; DIRICHLET PROCESS MIXTURE; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENETIC TREE CONSTRUCTION METHOD; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; BAYES THEOREM; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

EID: 2442691520     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh112     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adachi, J., and M. Hasegawa. 1996. Model of amino-acid substitution in proteins encoded by mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 42:459-468.
2. Adachi, J., P. J. Wadell, W. Martin, and M. Hasegawa. 2000. Plastid genome phylogeny and a model of amino-acid substitution for proteins encoded by chloroplast DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 50:348-358.
3. Antoniak, C. E. 1974. Mixtures of Dirichlet processes with applications to Bayesian nonparametric problems. Ann. Statistics 2:1152-1174.
4. Baldauf, S. L., A. J. Roger, I. Wenk-Siefert, and W. F. Doolittle. 2000. A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data. Science 290:972-977.
5. Bapteste, E., H. Brinkmann, J. A. Lee, D. V. Moore, C. W. Sensen, P. Gordon, L. Durufle, T. Gaasterland, P. Lopez, M. Muller, and H. Philippe. 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent arnoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1414-1419.
6. Broet, P., S. Richardson, and F. Radvanyi. 2002. Bayesian hierarchical model for identifying changes in gene expression from microarray experiments. J. Comp. Biol. 9:671-683.
7. Bruno, W. J. 1996. Modeling residue usage in aligned protein sequences via maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:1368-1374.
8. Dayhoff, M., R. V. Eck, and C. M. Park. 1972. A model of evolutionary change in proteins. Pp. 88-89 In M. Dayhoff, ed., Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.
9. Dayhoff, M., R. Schwartz, and B. Orcutt. 1978. A model of evolutionary change in proteins. Pp. 345-352 In M. Dayhoff, ed., Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.
10. Dimmic, M. W., D. P. Mindell, and R. A. Goldstein. 2000. Modeling evolution at the protein level using an adjustable amino acid fitness model. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 5:18-29.
11. Escobar, M., and M. West. 1995. Bayesian density estimation and inference using mixtures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90:577-588.
12. Eskin, E., W. N. Grundy, and Y. Singer. 2001. Using mixtures of common ancestors for estimating the probabilities of discrete events in biological sequences. Bioinformatics 17:S65-S73.
13. Fast, N. M., J. C. Kissinger, D. S. Roos, and P. J. Keeling. 2001. Nuclear-encoded, plastid-targeted genes suggest a single common origin for apicomplexan and dinoflagellate plastids. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:418-426.
14. Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
15. -. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Mass.
16. Ferguson, T. 1973. A Bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems. Ann. Statistics 1:209-230.
17. Gelman, A. 1998. Simulating normalizing constants: from importance sampling to bridge sampling to path sampling. Stat. Sci. 13:163-185.
18. Gelman, A., X. L. Meng, and H. Stern. 1996. Posterior predicive assessment of model fitness via realised discrepancies. Statistica Sinica 6:733-807.
19. Gelman, A., J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
20. Goldman, N., J. Thorne, and D. Jones. 1998. Assessing the impact of secondary structure and solvent accessibility on protein evolution. Genetics 149:445-458.
21. Goldman, N., J. L. Thorne, and D. T. Jones. 1996. Using evolutionary trees in protein secondary structure prediction and other comparative sequence analyses. J. Mol. Biol. 263:196-208.
22. Goldman, N., and S. Whelan. 2002. A novel use of equilibrium frequencies in models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1821-1831.
23. Green, P. J., and S. Richardson. 1998. Modelling heterogeneity with and without the Dirichlet process. Technical report, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.
24. Halpern, A. L., and W. J. Bruno. 1998. Evolutionary distances for protein-coding sequences: modeling site-specific residue frequencies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:910-917.
25. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, R. E. Miller. and F. Ronquist. 2002. Potential applications and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:673-688.
26. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and R. Nielsen. 1999. Variation in the pattern of nucleotide substitution across sites. J. Mol. Evol. 48:86-93.
27. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
28. Jaynes, E. 2003. Probability Theory. The logic of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
29. Jeffreys, H. 1935. Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 31:203-222.
30. -. 1961. Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press.
31. Jones, D. T., W. R. Taylor, and J. M. Thornton. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Cabios 8:275-282.
32. Kass, R., and A. Raftery. 1995. Bayes factors and model uncertainty. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90:773-795.
33. Koshi, J. M., and R. A. Goldstein. 1998. Models of natural mutations including site heterogeneity. Proteins 32:289-295.
34. -. 2001. Analyzing site heterogeneity during protein evolution. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. pp. 191-202.
35. Koshi, J. M., D. P. Mindell, and R. A. Goldstein. 1999. Using physical-chemistry-based substitution models in phylogenetic analyses of HIV-1 subtypes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:173-179.
36. Lang, B. F., C. O'Kelly, T. Nerad, M. W. Gray, and G. Burger. 2002. The closest unicellular relatives of animals. Curr. Biol. 12:1773-1778.
37. Larget, B., and D. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
38. Li, S. 1996. Phylogenetic tree construction using Markov chain Monte Carlo. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
39. Liò, P., and N. Goldman. 1999. Using protein structural information in evolutionary inference: transmembrane proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1696-1710.
40. Lopez, P. 1997. Analyse phylogénétique de grands alignements de protéines: vers une classification des sites? Master degree dissertation, Université Paris XI, Paris, France.
41. Miyamoto, M. M., and W. M. Fitch. 1996. Constraints on protein evolution and the age of Eubacteria/Eukaryote split. Syst. Biol. 45:568-575.
42. Muller, T., R. Spang, and M. Vingron. 2002. Estimating amino-acid substitution models: a comparison of Dayhoff's estimator, the resolvent approach and a maximum likelihood method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:8-13.
43. Neal, R. M. 2000. Markov chain sampling methods for Dirichlet process mixture models. J. Comput. Graphical. Stat. 9:249-265.
44. Ogata, Y. 1989. A Monte Carlo method for high dimensional integration. Numerishe Mathematik 55:137-157.
45. Posada, D. and K. Crandall. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
46. Rannala, B. 2002. Identifiability of parameters in MCMC Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:754-760.
47. Rubin, D. B. 1984. Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician. Ann. Stat. 4:1151-1172.
48. Schneider, T. D., and R. M. Stephens. 1990. Sequence logos: a new way to display consensus sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 18:6097-6100.
49. Schwartz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Statistics 6:461-464.
50. Soyer, O., M. W. Dimmic, R. R. Neubig, and R. A. Goldstein. 2002. Using evolutionary methods to study G-protein coupled receptors. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. pp. 625-636.
51. Suchard, M., R. Weiss, and J. Sinsheimer. 2001. Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1001-1013.
52. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? Syst. Biol. 50:723-729.
53. Swofford, D., G. P. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenefic inference. In Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
54. Thorne, J. L., N. Goldman, and D. T. Jones. 1996. Combining protein evolution and secondary structure. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:666-673.
55. Wald, A. 1949. Note on the consistency of maximumm likelihood. Ann. Math. Stat. 20:595-601.
56. Whelan, S., and N. Goldman. 2001. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:691-699.
57. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
58. -. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
59. -. 1995. A space-time process model for the evolution of DNA sequences. Genetics 139:993-1005.
60. -. 1996. Among site variation and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:367-370.
61. Yang, Z., and B. Rannala. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:717-724.