ModelOMatic: Fast and automated model selection between ry, nucleotide, amino acid, and codon substitution models

Systematic Biology

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 42-55

  Whelan, Simon ^a,b   Allen, James E ^b   Blackburne, Benjamin P ^b   Talavera, David ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; CODON; NUCLEOTIDE;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; CODON; COMPUTER PROGRAM; GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; PROCEDURES;

AMINO ACIDS; ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; CODON; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NUCLEOTIDES; PHYLOGENY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84930343053     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu062     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Akaike H. 1974. A newlook at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans Automatic Control 19 716-723.
2. Allen J.E., Whelan S. 2014. Assessing the State of Substitution Models DescribingNoncoding RNAEvolution. Genome Biol. Evol. 6:65-75.
3. Anisimova M., Gascuel O. 2006. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst. Biol. 55:539-552.
4. Bollback J.P. 2002. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1171-1180.
5. Brown J.M. 2014. Detection of implausible phylogenetic inferences using posterior predictive assessment of model fit. Syst. Biol. 63:334-348.
6. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer Verlag.
7. Chiari Y., Cahais V., Galtier N., Delsuc F. 2012. Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria). BMC Biol. 10:65.
8. Darriba D., Taboada G.L., Doallo R., Posada D. 2011. ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27:1164-1165.
9. Darriba D., Taboada G.L., Doallo R., Posada D. 2012. jModelTest 2: more models, newheuristics and parallel computing.Nat. Methods 9:772.
10. Felsenstein J. 2003. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
11. Finn R.D., Mistry J., Tate J., Coggill P., Heger A., Pollington J.E., Gavin O.L., Gunasekaran P., Ceric G., Forslund K., Holm L., Sonnhammer E.L., Eddy S.R., Bateman A. 2010. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:D211-D222.
12. Gibson A., Gowri-Shankar V., Higgs P.G., Rattray M. 2005. A comprehensive analysis of mammalian mitochondrial genome base composition and improved phylogenetic methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:251-264.
13. Gil M., Zanetti M.S., Zoller S., Anisimova M. 2013. CodonPhyML: fast maximum likelihood phylogeny estimation under codon substitution models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:1270-1280.
14. Goldman N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
15. Goldman N., Whelan S. 2002. A novel use of equilibrium frequencies in models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 1821-1831.
16. Goldman N., Yang Z. 1994. A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:725-736.
17. Guindon S., Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52:696-704.
18. Halpern A.L., Bruno W.J. 1998. Evolutionary distances for proteincoding sequences: modeling site-specific residue frequencies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:910-917.
19. Huelsenbeck J.P., Larget B., Alfaro M.E. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1123-1133.
20. Jermiin L.S., JayaswalV., Ababneh F., Robinson J. 2008. Data, sequences analysis and evolution. In: Keith J.M., editor. Bioinformatics. vol: 1. Phylogenetic model evaluation. Totowa (NJ): Humana Press. pp. 331-363.
21. Keane T.M., Creevey C.J., PentonyM.M., Naughton T.J., Mclnerney J.O. 2006. Assessment of methods for amino acid matrix selection and their use onempirical data shows that ad hoc assumptions for choice of matrix are not justified. BMC Evol. Biol. 6:29.
22. Kosiol C., Bofkin L., Whelan S. 2006. Phylogenetics by likelihood: evolutionary modeling as a tool for understanding the genome. J. Biomed. Inform. 39:51-61.
23. Kosiol C., Goldman N. 2011. Markovian and non-Markovian protein sequence evolution: aggregated Markov process models. J. Mol. Biol. 411:910-923.
24. Kosiol C., Holmes I., Goldman N. 2007. An empirical codon model for protein sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1464-1479.
25. LartillotN., Philippe H. 2004.ABayesian mixturemodel for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1095-1109.
26. Le S.Q., Gascuel O. 2008.Animproved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1307-1320.
27. Letsch H.O., Kjer K.M. 2011. Potential pitfalls of modelling ribosomal RNA data in phylogenetic tree reconstruction: evidence from case studies in the Metazoa. BMC Evol. Biol. 11:146.
28. Liberles D.A., Teichmann S.A., Bahar I., BastollaU., Bloom J., Bornberg- Bauer E., Colwell L.J., de Koning A.P., Dokholyan N.V., Echave J., ElofssonA., Gerloff D.L., Goldstein R.A., Grahnen J.A., Holder M.T., Lakner C., Lartillot N., Lovell S.C., Naylor G., Perica T., Pollock D.D., Pupko T., Regan L., Roger A., Rubinstein N., Shakhnovich E., Sjölander K., Sunyaev S., Teufel A.I., Thorne J.L., Thornton J.W., Weinreich D.M., Whelan S. 2012. The interface of protein structure, protein biophysics, and molecular evolution. Protein Sci. 21:769-785.
29. Minin V., Abdo Z., Joyce P., Sullivan J. 2003. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52:674-683.
30. Nguyen M.A.T., Klaere S., von Haeseler A. 2011. MISFITS: evaluating the goodness of fit between a phylogenetic model and an alignment. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:143-152.
31. Phillips M.J., Lin Y.-H., Harrison G., Penny D. 2001. Mitochondrial genomes of a bandicoot and a brushtail possum confirm the monophyly of australidelphian marsupials. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 268:1533-1538.
32. Posada D. 2008. jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1253-1256.
33. Posada D., Buckley T.R. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 53:793-808.
34. Posada D., CrandallK.A. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
35. Regier J.C., Shultz J.W., Zwick A., Hussey A., Ball B., Wetzer R., Martin J.W., Cunningham C.W. 2010. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences.Nature 463:1079-1083.
36. Robinson D., Jones D., Kishino H., GoldmanN., Thorne J. 2003. Protein evolution with dependence among codons due to tertiary structure. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:1692-1704.
37. Rodrigue N., Lartillot N., Bryant D., Philippe H. 2005. Site interdependence attributed to tertiary structure in amino acid sequence evolution. Gene 347:207-217.
38. Rogers J.S. 1997. On the consistency of maximum likelihood estimation of phylogenetic trees from nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 46:354-357.
39. Schöniger M., von Haeseler A. 1999. Toward assigning helical regions in alignments of ribosomal RNA and testing the appropriateness of evolutionary models. J. Mol. Evol. 49:691-698.
40. Seo T.-K., Kishino H. 2009. Statistical comparison of nucleotide, amino acid, and codon substitution models for evolutionary analysis of protein-coding sequences. Syst. Biol. 58:199-210.
41. Seo T.-K., Kishino H. 2008. Synonymous substitutions substantially improve evolutionary inference fromhighly diverged proteins. Syst. Biol. 57:367-377.
42. Suchard M.A., Weiss R.E., Sinsheimer J.S. 2001. Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1001-1013.
43. Sullivan J., Joyce P. 2005. Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:445-466.
44. Telford M.J., Wise M.J., Gowri-Shankar V. 2005. Consideration of RNA secondary structure significantly improves likelihood-based estimates of phylogeny: examples from the bilateria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1129-1136.
45. Thorne J.L., GoldmanN., Jones D.T. 1996. Combining protein evolution and secondary structure. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:666-673.
46. Whelan S. 2008. The genetic code can cause systematic bias in simple phylogenetic models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363:4003-4011.
47. Whelan S., Goldman N. 2004. Estimating the frequency of events that cause multiple-nucleotide changes. Genetics 167:2027-2043.
48. Whelan S., Goldman N. 2001. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived frommultiple protein families using a maximumlikelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:691-699.
49. Whelan S., de Bakker P.I.W., Goldman N. 2003. Pandit: a database of protein and associated nucleotide domains with inferred trees. Bioinformatics 19:1556-1563.
50. Whelan S., de Bakker P.I.W., Quevillon E., Rodriguez N., Goldman N. 2006. PANDIT: an evolution-centric database of protein and associated nucleotide domains with inferred trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 34:D327-D331.
51. Whelan S., Lio P., Goldman N. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics: state-of-the-art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet. 17:262-272.
52. Yang Z. 2006. Computational molecular evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Yang Z., Rannala B. 2012. Molecular phylogenetics: principles and practice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13:303-314.
54. Yang Z., Nielsen R., Hasegawa M. 1998. Models of amino acid substitution and applications to mitochondrial protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:1600-1611.
55. Yang Z.H. 1994. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA-sequences with variable rates over sites-approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
56. Yang Z.H. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1586-1591.