Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-511
DC FieldValue
dc.titleComparison of methods for estimating the nucleotide substitution matrix
dc.contributor.authorOscamou, M.
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, D.
dc.contributor.authorBing, V.B.
dc.contributor.authorHuttley, G.A.
dc.contributor.authorLladser, M.E.
dc.contributor.authorKnight, R.
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-28T05:10:58Z
dc.date.available2014-10-28T05:10:58Z
dc.date.issued2008-12-01
dc.identifier.citationOscamou, M., McDonald, D., Bing, V.B., Huttley, G.A., Lladser, M.E., Knight, R. (2008-12-01). Comparison of methods for estimating the nucleotide substitution matrix. BMC Bioinformatics 9 : -. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-511
dc.identifier.issn14712105
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/105063
dc.description.abstractBackground: The nucleotide substitution rate matrix is a key parameter of molecular evolution. Several methods for inferring this parameter have been proposed, with different mathematical bases. These methods include counting sequence differences and taking the log of the resulting probability matrices, methods based on Markov triples, and maximum likelihood methods that infer the substitution probabilities that lead to the most likely model of evolution. However, the speed and accuracy of these methods has not been compared. Results: Different methods differ in performance by orders of magnitude (ranging from 1 ms to 10 s per matrix), but differences in accuracy of rate matrix reconstruction appear to be relatively small. Encouragingly, relatively simple and fast methods can provide results at least as accurate as far more complex and computationally intensive methods, especially when the sequences to be compared are relatively short. Conclusion: Based on the conditions tested, we recommend the use of method of Gojobori et al. (1982) for long sequences (> 600 nucleotides), and the method of Goldman et al. (1996) for shorter sequences (< 600 nucleotides). The method of Barry and Hartigan (1987) can provide somewhat more accuracy, measured as the Euclidean distance between the true and inferred matrices, on long sequences (> 2000 nucleotides) at the expense of substantially longer computation time. The availability of methods that are both fast and accurate will allow us to gain a global picture of change in the nucleotide substitution rate matrix on a genomewide scale across the tree of life. © 2008 Oscamou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-511
dc.sourceScopus
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentSTATISTICS & APPLIED PROBABILITY
dc.description.doi10.1186/1471-2105-9-511
dc.description.sourcetitleBMC Bioinformatics
dc.description.volume9
dc.description.page-
dc.description.codenBBMIC
dc.identifier.isiut000263972700001
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
2008-comparison_methods_estimating_nucleotide_substitution-pub.pdf464.69 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
checked on Jan 20, 2022

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
checked on Jan 12, 2022

Page view(s)

354
checked on Jan 20, 2022

Download(s)

9
checked on Jan 20, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.