Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
An Improved General Amino Acid Replacement Matrix
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
An Improved General Amino Acid Replacement Matrix
Do you wish to request the book?
An Improved General Amino Acid Replacement Matrix
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
An Improved General Amino Acid Replacement Matrix
2008
Overview
Amino acid replacement matrices are an essential basis of protein phylogenetics. They are used to compute substitution probabilities along phylogeny branches and thus the likelihood of the data. They are also essential in protein alignment. A number of replacement matrices and methods to estimate these matrices from protein alignments have been proposed since the seminal work of Dayhoff et al. (1972). An important advance was achieved by Whelan and Goldman (2001) and their WAG matrix, thanks to an efficient maximum likelihood estimation approach that accounts for the phylogenies of sequences within each training alignment. We further refine this method by incorporating the variability of evolutionary rates across sites in the matrix estimation and using a much larger and diverse database than BRKALN, which was used to estimate WAG. To estimate our new matrix (called LG after the authors), we use an adaptation of the XRATE software and 3,912 alignments from Pfam, comprising ~50,000 sequences and ~6.5 million residues overall. To evaluate the LG performance, we use an independent sample consisting of 59 alignments from TreeBase and randomly divide Pfam alignments into 3,412 training and 500 test alignments. The comparison with WAG and JTT shows a clear likelihood improvement. With TreeBase, we find that 1) the average Akaike information criterion gain per site is 0.25 and 0.42, when compared with WAG and JTT, respectively; 2) LG is significantly better than WAG for 38 alignments (among 59), and significantly worse with 2 alignments only; and 3) tree topologies inferred with LG, WAG, and JTT frequently differ, indicating that using LG impacts not only the likelihood value but also the output tree. Results with the test alignments from Pfam are analogous. LG and a PHYML implementation can be downloaded from http://atgc.lirmm.fr/LG. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Subject
