1998
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(19980815)32:3<289::aid-prot4>3.0.co;2-d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Models of natural mutations including site heterogeneity

Abstract: New computational models of natural site mutations are developed that account for the different selective pressures acting on different locations in the protein. The number of adjustable parameters is greatly reduced by basing the models on the underlying physical-chemical properties of the amino acids. This allows us to use our method on small data sets built of specific protein types. We demonstrate that with this approach we can represent the evolutionary patterns in HIV envelope proteins far better than wi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Early simple evolutionary models, that assume that the rate of substitutions at all locations in all proteins at all times followed the same substitution matrix, have been gradually supplemented by mixture models that allow differences in the absolute substitution rates [24], relative substitution rates at different locations [25][28], and differences in the substitution rates at different times [29],[30]. Each component of the mixture model, represented by a distinct substitution matrix, reflects a different degree or form of selective pressure.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Early simple evolutionary models, that assume that the rate of substitutions at all locations in all proteins at all times followed the same substitution matrix, have been gradually supplemented by mixture models that allow differences in the absolute substitution rates [24], relative substitution rates at different locations [25][28], and differences in the substitution rates at different times [29],[30]. Each component of the mixture model, represented by a distinct substitution matrix, reflects a different degree or form of selective pressure.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model 1 involves a standard single substitution matrix with Gamma-distributed rate variation [24]. In Model 2, we consider that different locations in the protein follow, or ‘are assigned’, to one of a number of different possible substitution matrices [25][28]. We do not initially know which sites belong to which substitution matrix.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More advanced phylogenetic methods sometimes allow for different “average” substitution tendencies for different classes of protein residues (such as surface versus core residues, or residues involved in different types of secondary structures) [19][24]. Still other methods use simulations or other structure-based methods to derive site-specific substitution matrices for different positions in a protein [25][28]. However, none of these methods relate the substitution probabilities to the effects of mutations on experimentally measurable properties such as protein stability, nor do they provide a method for predicting the effects of the mutations from the protein phylogenies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thorne et al (2007) relaxed the standard assumption of independent sites, considering the selective constraints imposed by the need to maintain a stable well-defined structure; this was estimated using protein structure prediction algorithms, despite their construction being motivated by a quite different problem. Rodrigue et al (2010) adapted a mixture-model approach that grouped locations under similar selective constraints and developed more specific models for characterizing these different types of locations; each individual location was then represented by a mixture of these models (Koshi and Goldstein 1998). The available data determined the number of components in the mixture that could be justified.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%