Inferring divergence of context-dependent substitution rates in drosophila genomes with applications to comparative genomics

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1769-1780

  Chachick, Ran ^a   Tanay, Amos ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Con2; conservation score; context dependent evolution; Drosophila genomes; transcription factor binding site evolution

Indexed keywords

TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; DNA SEQUENCE; DROSOPHILA; GENOME; HOMEOBOX; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MUTATION RATE; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; DROSOPHILA; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENOME, INSECT; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84863574768     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/mss056     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Arndt PF, Burge CB, Hwa T. 2003. DNA sequence evolution with neighbor-dependent mutation. J Comput Biol. 10:313-322. (Pubitemid 37372151)
2. Arndt PF, Hwa T. 2005. Identification and measurement of neighbordependent nucleotide substitution processes. Bioinformatics 21:2322-2328. (Pubitemid 40731586)
3. Baele G, Van de Peer Y, Vansteelandt S. 2008. A model-based approach to study nearest-neighbor influences reveals complex substitution patterns in non-coding sequences. Syst Biol. 57:675-692.
4. Baele G, Van de Peer Y, Vansteelandt S. 2010a. Modelling the ancestral sequence distribution and model frequencies in context-dependent models for primate non-coding sequences. BMC Evol Biol. 10:244.
5. Baele G, Van de Peer Y, Vansteelandt S. 2010b. Using non-reversible context-dependent evolutionary models to study substitution patterns in primate non-coding sequences. J Mol Evol. 71:34-50.
6. Christensen OF, Hobolth A, Jensen JL. 2005. Pseudo-likelihood analysis of codon substitution models with neighbor-dependent rates. J Comput Biol. 12:1166-1182. (Pubitemid 41759888)
7. Clark AG, Eisen MB, Smith DR, et al. (150 co-authors). 2007. Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature 450:203-218. (Pubitemid 351972300)
8. Cohen NM, Kenigsberg E, Tanay A. 2011. Primate CpG islands are maintained by heterogeneous evolutionary regimes involving minimal selection. Cell 145:773-786.
9. Cohn I, El-Hay T, Friedman N, Kupferman R. 2010. Mean field variational approximation for continuous-time Bayesian networks. J Mach Learn Res. 11:2745-2783.
10. Cutroneo KR, Phan SH. 2003. TGF-beta1-induced Smad 3 binding to the Smad 7 gene:knockout of Smad 7 gene transcription by sense phosphorothioate oligos, autoregulation, and effect on TGF-beta1 secretion:bleomycin acts through TGF-beta1. J Cell Biochem. 89:474-483. (Pubitemid 36648769)
11. de Hoon MJ, Imoto S, Nolan J, Miyano S. 2004. Open source clustering software. Bioinformatics 20:1453-1454. (Pubitemid 38931415)
12. de Koning AP, Gu W, Pollock DD. 2010. Rapid likelihood analysis on large phylogenies using partial sampling of substitution histories. Mol Biol Evol. 27:249-265.
13. Felsenstein J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 17:368-376. (Pubitemid 11016207)
14. Fujita PA, Rhead B, Zweig AS, et al. (27 co-authors). 2010. The UCSC Genome Browser database:update 2011. Nucleic Acids Res. 39:D876-D882.
15. Hobolth A, Uyenoyama MK, Wiuf C. 2008. Importance sampling for the infinite sites model. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 7, Article 32.
16. Hwang DG, Green P. 2004. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence analysis reveals varying neutral substitution patterns in mammalian evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 101:13994-14001. (Pubitemid 39305018)
17. Jojic V, Jojic N, Meek C, Geiger D, Siepel A, Haussler D, Heckerman D. 2004. Efficient approximations for learning phylogenetic HMM models from data. Bioinformatics 20(SUPPL. 1):i161-i168. (Pubitemid 41296685)
18. Jordan MI, Ghahramani Z, Jaakkola TS, Saul LK. 1999. An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Mach Learn. 37:183-233. (Pubitemid 30544678)
19. Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 16:111-120. (Pubitemid 11166431)
20. Koller D, Friedman N. 2009. Probabilistic graphical models:principles and techniques. Cambridge (MA):MIT Press.
21. Lunter G, Hein J. 2004. A nucleotide substitution model with nearestneighbour interactions. Bioinformatics 20(SUPPL. 1):i216-i223. (Pubitemid 41296692)
22. Nevarez PA, DeBoever CM, Freeland BJ, Quitt MA, Bush EC. 2010. Context dependent substitution biases vary within the human genome. BMC Bioinformatics. 11:462.
23. Nielsen R. 2002. Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Syst Biol. 51:729-739. (Pubitemid 35294805)
24. Nodelman U, Shelton CR, Koller D. 2002. Continuous time Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence; San Francisco (CA):UAI. p. 378-387.
25. Nodelman U, Shelton CR, Koller D. 2005. Expectation propagation for continuous time Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence; Edinburgh (Scotland):UAI. p. 431-440.
26. Noyes MB, Christensen RG, Wakabayashi A, Stormo GD, Brodsky MH, Wolfe SA. 2008. Analysis of homeodomain specificities allows the family-wide prediction of preferred recognition sites. Cell 133:1277-1289. (Pubitemid 351852912)
27. Pedersen AM, Jensen JL. 2001. A dependent-rates model and an MCMC-based methodology for the maximum-likelihood analysis of sequences with overlapping reading frames. Mol Biol Evol. 18:763-776. (Pubitemid 32372947)
28. Press W, Teukolsky S, Vetterling W, Flannery B. 2007. Numerical recipes:the art of scientific computing, 3rd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
29. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MrBayes 3:Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-1574. (Pubitemid 37038874)
30. Rovescalli AC, Cinquanta M, Ferrante J, Kozak CA, Nirenberg M. 2000. The mouse Nkx-1.2 homeobox gene: Alternative RNA splicing at canonical and noncanonical splice sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 97:1982-1987. (Pubitemid 30134008)
31. Siepel A, Bejerano G, Pedersen JS, et al. (16 co-authors). 2005. Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Res. 15:1034-1050. (Pubitemid 41126859)
32. Siepel A, Haussler D. 2004. Phylogenetic estimation of contextdependent substitution rates by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 21:468-488. (Pubitemid 38339664)
33. Singh ND, Arndt PF, Clark AG, Aquadro CF. 2009. Strong evidence for lineage and sequence specificity of substitution rates and patterns in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol. 26:1591-1605.
34. Takai D, Jones PA. 2002. Comprehensive analysis of CpG islands in human chromosomes 21 and 22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 99:3740-3745. (Pubitemid 34252176)
35. Tanay A, O'Donnell AH, Damelin M, Bestor TH. 2007. Hyperconserved CpG domains underlie Polycomb-binding sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104:5521-5526. (Pubitemid 47175713)
36. Tanay A, Siggia ED. 2008. Sequence context affects the rate of short insertions and deletions in flies and primates. Genome Biol. 9:R37.
37. Zawel L, Dai JL, Buckhaults P, Zhou S, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Kern SE. 1998. Human Smad3 and Smad4 are sequence-specific transcription activators. Mol CE.L.L. 1:611-617. (Pubitemid 128374697)