2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-016-9761-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Accelerated Rates of Insertions and Deletions Independent of Rates of Nucleotide Substitution

Abstract: Evolutionary constraint for insertions and deletions (indels) is not necessarily equal to constraint for nucleotide substitutions for any given region of a genome. Knowing the variation in indel-specific evolutionary rates across the sequence will aid our understanding of evolutionary constraints on indels, and help us infer how indels have contributed to the evolution of the sequence. However, unlike for nucleotide substitutions, there has been no phylogenetic method that can statistically infer significantly… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 24 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, studies that aimed to elucidate how indel dynamics vary among genes and taxa rely on ad hoc methodologies for indel rate inference (e.g., Chang and Benner 2004 ). Of note, Navarro Leija et al (2016) recently explored variation in indel rate independent of the substitution rate across a given MSA. They account for this variation by presenting a stochastic model, where the gap character “-“ is added to the DNA alphabet as a fifth character.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, studies that aimed to elucidate how indel dynamics vary among genes and taxa rely on ad hoc methodologies for indel rate inference (e.g., Chang and Benner 2004 ). Of note, Navarro Leija et al (2016) recently explored variation in indel rate independent of the substitution rate across a given MSA. They account for this variation by presenting a stochastic model, where the gap character “-“ is added to the DNA alphabet as a fifth character.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%