Dataset Information

Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics.

ABSTRACT: Identifying coevolving positions in protein sequences has myriad applications, ranging from understanding and predicting the structure of single molecules to generating proteome-wide predictions of interactions. Algorithms for detecting coevolving positions can be classified into two categories: tree-aware, which incorporate knowledge of phylogeny, and tree-ignorant, which do not. Tree-ignorant methods are frequently orders of magnitude faster, but are widely held to be insufficiently accurate because of a confounding of shared ancestry with coevolution. We conjectured that by using a null distribution that appropriately controls for the shared-ancestry signal, tree-ignorant methods would exhibit equivalent statistical power to tree-aware methods. Using a novel t-test transformation of coevolution metrics, we systematically compared four tree-aware and five tree-ignorant coevolution algorithms, applying them to myoglobin and myosin. We further considered the influence of sequence recoding using reduced-state amino acid alphabets, a common tactic employed in coevolutionary analyses to improve both statistical and computational performance.Consistent with our conjecture, the transformed tree-ignorant metrics (particularly Mutual Information) often outperformed the tree-aware metrics. Our examination of the effect of recoding suggested that charge-based alphabets were generally superior for identifying the stabilizing interactions in alpha helices. Performance was not always improved by recoding however, indicating that the choice of alphabet is critical.The results suggest that t-test transformation of tree-ignorant metrics can be sufficient to control for patterns arising from shared ancestry.

SUBMITTER: Caporaso JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2637866 | biostudies-other | 2008 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics.

Caporaso J Gregory JG Smit Sandra S Easton Brett C BC Hunter Lawrence L Huttley Gavin A GA Knight Rob R

BMC evolutionary biology 20081203

<h4>Background</h4>Identifying coevolving positions in protein sequences has myriad applications, ranging from understanding and predicting the structure of single molecules to generating proteome-wide predictions of interactions. Algorithms for detecting coevolving positions can be classified into two categories: tree-aware, which incorporate knowledge of phylogeny, and tree-ignorant, which do not. Tree-ignorant methods are frequently orders of magnitude faster, but are widely held to be insuff ...[more]

PMID: 19055758

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhylogenetic tree comparison metrics are an important tool in the study of evolution, and hence the definition of such metrics is an interesting problem in phylogenetics. In a paper in Taxon fifty years ago, Sokal and Rohlf proposed to measure quantitatively the difference between a pair of phylogenetic trees by first encoding them by means of their half-matrices of cophenetic values, and then comparing these matrices. This idea has been used several times since then to define dissimilarity measures between phylogenetic trees but, to our knowledge, no proper metric on weighted phylogenetic trees with nested taxa based on this idea has been formally defined and studied yet. Actually, the cophenetic values of pairs of different taxa alone are not enough to single out phylogenetic trees with weighted arcs or nested taxa.ResultsFor every (rooted) phylogenetic tree T, let its cophenetic vectorφ(T) consist of all pairs of cophenetic values between pairs of taxa in T and all depths of taxa in T. It turns out that these cophenetic vectors single out weighted phylogenetic trees with nested taxa. We then define a family of cophenetic metrics dφ,p by comparing these cophenetic vectors by means of Lp norms, and we study, either analytically or numerically, some of their basic properties: neighbors, diameter, distribution, and their rank correlation with each other and with other metrics.ConclusionsThe cophenetic metrics can be safely used on weighted phylogenetic trees with nested taxa and no restriction on degrees, and they can be computed in O(n2) time, where n stands for the number of taxa. The metrics dφ,1 and dφ,2 have positive skewed distributions, and they show a low rank correlation with the Robinson-Foulds metric and the nodal metrics, and a very high correlation with each other and with the splitted nodal metrics. The diameter of dφ,p, for p⩾1 , is in O(n(p+2)/p), and thus for low p they are more discriminative, having a wider range of values.

Dataset Information

Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics.

Publications

Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets