Quantifying the stationarity and time reversibility of the nucleotide substitution process

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 2525-2535

  Squartini, Federico ^a   Arndt, Peter F ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR GENETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

CpG effect; Markov models of nucleotide substitutions; Maximum likelihood estimation; Stationarity; Time reversibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CPG ISLAND; DROSOPHILA SIMULANS; HUMAN; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NONHUMAN; NUCLEIC ACID BASE SUBSTITUTION; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE GENETICS;

ANIMALS; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, GENETIC; NUCLEOTIDES;

DROSOPHILA SIMULANS; HOMO SAPIENS;

EID: 56449097002     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msn169     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ababneh F, Jermiin LS, Ma C, Robinson J. 2006. Matched-pairs tests of homogeneity with applications to homologous nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 22:1225-1231.
2. Arndt PF, Hwa T. 2005. Identification and measurement of neighbor-dependent nucleotide substitution processes. Bioinformatics. 21:2322-2328.
3. Arndt PF, Hwa T, Petrov DA. 2005. Substantial regional variation in substitution rates in the human genome: importance of GC content, gene density, and telomere-specific effects. J Mol Evol. 60:748-763.
4. Arndt PF, Petrov DA, Hwa T. 2003. Distinct changes of genomic biases in nucleotide substitution at the time of mammalian radiation. Mol Biol Evol. 20:1887-1896.
5. Barry D, Hartigan JA. 1987. Statistical analysis of hominoid molecular evolution. Stat Sci. 2:191-207.
6. Chang JT. 1996. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math Biosci. 134:189-215.
7. Coulondre C, Miller JH, Farabaugh PJ, Gilbert W. 1978. Molecular basis of base substitution hotspots in Escherichia coli. Nature. 274:775-780.
8. Duret L. 2006. The GC content of primates and rodents genomes is not at equilibrium: a reply to Antezana. J Mol Evol. 62:803-806.
9. Duret L, Arndt PF. 2008. The impact of recombination on nucleotide substitutions in the human genome. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000071.
10. Eyre-Walker A. 1999. Evidence of selection on silent site base composition in mammals: potential implications for the evolution of isochores and junk DNA. Genetics. 152: 675-683.
11. Felsenstein J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 17:368-376.
12. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol. 22:160-174.
13. Hubbard TJP, Aken BL, Beal K, et al. (58 co-authors). 2006. Ensembl 2007. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:D610-D617.
14. Hwang DG, Green P. 2004. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence analysis reveals varying neutral substitution patterns in mammalian evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101:13994-14001.
15. Jayaswal V, Jermiin LS, Robinson J. 2005. Estimation of phylogeny using a general Markov model. Evolutionary Bioinformatics. 1:62-80.
16. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN, editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York: Academic Press. p. 21-123.
17. Kelly FP. 1979. Reversibility and stochastic networks. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
18. Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitution through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 16:111-120.
19. Kolmogorov AN. 1936. Zur theorie der markoffschen ketten. Math Ann. 112:155-160.
20. Lanave C, Preparata G, Saccone C, Serio G. 1984. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J Mol Evol. 20:86-93.
21. Liò P, Goldman N. 1998. Models of molecular evolution and phylogeny. Genome Res. 8:1233-1244.
22. Lobry JR. 1995. Properties of a general model of DNA evolution under no-strand-bias conditions. J Mol Evol. 40:326-330.
23. Lobry JR, Lobry C. 1999. Evolution of DNA base composition under no-strand-bias conditions when the substitution rates are not constant. Mol Biol Evol. 16:719-723.
24. McLachlan G, Krishnan T. 1997. The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
25. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT. 1992. Numerical recipes in C, the art of scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Rodríguez F, Oliver JL, Marín A, Medina JR. 1990. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol. 142:485-501.
27. Rzhetsky A, Nei M. 1995. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. Mol Biol Evol. 12:131-151.
28. Saccone C, Lanave C, Pesole G, Preparata G. 1990. Influence of base composition on quantitative estimates of gene evolution. Methods Enzymol. 183:570-583.
29. Stark A, Lin MF, Kheradpour P, et al. (43 co-authors). 2007. Discovery of functional elements in 12 drosophila genomes using evolutionary signatures. Nature. 450:219-232.
30. Sueoka N. 1995. Intrastrand parity rules of DNA base composition and usage biases of synonymous codons. J Mol Evol. 40:318-325.
31. Tamura K. 1992. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G+C-content biases. Mol Biol Evol. 9:678-687.
32. Tamura K, Nei M. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol. 10:512-526.
33. Tavaré S. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect Math Life Sci. 17:57-86.
34. Tuffley C, Steel M. 1998. Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Math Biosci. 147:63-91.
35. Wu CI, Maeda N. 1987. Inequality in mutation rates of the two strands of DNA. Nature. 327:169-170.
36. Yang Z. 1993. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol Biol Evol. 10:1396-1401.