Abstract
The authors of a recent manuscript in "Nature" claim to have discovered "universal trends" of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution. Here, we show that this universal trend can be simply explained by a bias that is unavoidable with the 3-taxon trees used in the original analysis. We demonstrate that a rigorously reversible equilibrium model, when analyzed with the same methods as the "Nature" manuscript, yields identical (and in this case, clearly erroneous) conclusions. A main source of the bias is the division of the sequence data into "informative" and "noninformative" sites, which favors the observation of certain transitions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
