Minus the Error: Testing for Positive Selection in the Presence of Residual Alignment Errors
Selberg, A.; Clark, N.; Sackton, T. B.; Muse, S.; Lucaci, A.; Weaver, S.; Nekrutenko, A.; Chikina, M.; Pond, S. L. K.
Show abstract
Positive selection is an evolutionary process which increases the frequency of advantageous mutations because they confer a fitness benefit. Inferring the past action of positive selection on protein-coding sequences is fundamental for deciphering phenotypic diversity and the emergence of novel traits. With the advent of genome-wide comparative genomic datasets, researchers can analyze selection not only at the level of individual genes but also globally, delivering systems-level insights into evolutionary dynamics. However, genome-scale datasets are generated with automated pipelines and imperfect curation that does not eliminate all sequencing, annotation, and alignment errors. Positive selection inference methods are highly sensitive to such errors. We present BUSTED-E: a method designed to detect positive selection for amino acid diversification while concurrently identifying some alignment errors. This method builds on the flexible branch-site random effects model (BUSTED) for fitting distributions of dN/dS, with a critical modification: it incorporates an "error-sink" component to represent an abiological evolutionary regime. Using several genome-scale biological datasets that were extensively filtered using state-of-the art automated alignment tools, we show that BUSTED-E identifies pervasive residual alignment errors, produces more realistic estimates of positive selection, reduces bias, and improves biological interpretation. The BUSTED-E model promises to be a more stringent filter to identify positive selection in genome-wide contexts, thus enabling further characterization and validation of the most biologically relevant cases.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evolutionary shortcuts via multi-nucleotide substitutions and their impact on natural selection analyses. 98%
- A new comparative framework for estimating selection on synonymous substitutions. 97%
- Contrast-FEL: a test for differences in selective pressures at individual sites among clades and sets of branches. 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating ARG-estimation methods in the context of estimating population-mean polygenic score histories 95%
- A model-free method for genealogical inference without phasing and its application for topology weighting 95%
- Evaluation of methods for estimating coalescence times using ancestral recombination graphs 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.