HyPhy message board | |
http://www.hyphy.org/cgi-bin/hyphy_forums/YaBB.pl
Theoretical questions >> Sequence Analysis >> Output NielsenYang.bf http://www.hyphy.org/cgi-bin/hyphy_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1228999714 Message started by Miguel on Dec 11th, 2008 at 4:48am |
Title: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Miguel on Dec 11th, 2008 at 4:48am
Dear Sergei,
I am trying to interpretate the output of NielsenYang.bf (GY94 1x4, 8 categories, cutoff = 0.95), and I have some doubts about that, and I think for sure, they are very easy for you: - Model Neutral: Rate [1] and Rate [2] mean the omega values, and their weights mean the proportion of sites for the corresponding omega. Right? - Model Beta: Rate[1] to Rate [8] mean the omega for each category. Right? - Model Beta & w: Rate[1] to Rate[9] mean the omega for each category. Then, in "Sites with dN/dS>=1", What means the number in parenthesis beside each site?, for example: 1 (0.518826) 2 (0.328302) 3 (0.31326) 4 (0.29262) . . is it the omega for that site or the posterior probability? Here I have an alignment that, in the neutral model the omega value is 2.1 but in the Model 8 (Bata & w), there are not sites in "Sites with dN/dS > 1", how is it possible?. Thanks a lot, Miguel |
Title: Re: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Miguel on Dec 11th, 2008 at 8:36am
Dear Sergei,
Ok, so, in M8, in "Sites with dN/dS<=1", the numbers in parenthesys mean also the posterior probabilities for omega <= 1, right? About the last question I am sorry, I did a mistake, I told you neutral model when I wanted to say single rate model. So, the question is, is it possible to have an alignment with an omega > 2 in the single rate model and in the M8 model do not obtain sites with dN/dS > 1?, such us the case: *** RUNNING SINGLE RATE MODEL *** -4775.24771803793 dN/dS = 2.08162 *** RUNNING MODEL 8 (Beta & w) *** -4792.3778985718 dN/dS = 1.13844 (sample variance = 0.161697) Rate[1]= 0.99085194 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[2]= 0.99849676 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[3]= 0.99966269 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[4]= 0.99993782 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[5]= 0.99999213 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[6]= 0.99999954 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[7]= 1.00157413 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[8]= 2.29678233 (weight=0.1075459) Rate[9]= 1.00000000 (weight=0.1396329) ------------------------------------------------ Sites with dN/dS>1 (Posterior cutoff = 0.95) ------------------------------------------------ Sites with dN/dS<=1 (Posterior cutoff = 0.95) 1 (0.518826) 2 (0.328302) 3 (0.31326) 4 (0.29262) 5 (0.348639) 6 (0.69026) 7 (0.289077) 8 (0.310804) 9 (0.30969) 10 (0.852541) . .(the number in parenthesys never is >= 1) . Or are there positive selection sites in this alignment? If there are, what are they for a given (any value, e.g. 0.8) significance value? Many thanks!! Cheers, Miguel |
Title: Re: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Sergei on Dec 11th, 2008 at 3:30pm
Hi Miguel,
Miguel wrote on Dec 11th, 2008 at 8:36am:
This is a numerical issue - HyPhy is not discretizing the beta distribution correctly (rate[0-8] must be in 0-1). Quote:
It will always be in [0-1] as it is a posterior probability! Quote:
Just run your alignment through Datamonkey and it will all be revealed:) Sergei |
Title: Re: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Miguel on Dec 12th, 2008 at 2:20am
Dear Sergei,
Thanks a lot for your fast answer, I understand eveything. :) Let me ask you a last question about this. Is there any way for trying to converge these alignments in the M8 model?. On the other side, with the same alignment that I used for NielsenYang.bf, I made a proof in datamonkey for obtaining the positive selection sites (PSS), at 0.1 significance level. - With FEL, the PSS were very good (with very sense). - With SLAC, the PSS were good, but the algorithm only found a few of them (should be much more PSS). - With REL, as SLAC, at 0.5 significance level, the PSS were good but the algorithm only found very few of them, even changing the significance level. Well, looking to these results I prefer to use FEL, do you think I can believe in it (looking to the problems with NielsenYang method)? Do you think (like me) that FEL is the best option that I can use to detect PSS in this case?. Thanks a lot for help me with these problems for detecting PSS. Cheers, Miguel |
Title: Re: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Sergei on Dec 12th, 2008 at 2:49pm
Dear Miguel,
SLAC has less power than FEL on smaller (e.g. <50 sequences) alignments, so your findings are in line with the expectations. REL is finicky - it can perform very badly for pathological datasets, but generally it detects the most PSS; can you post datamonkey.org links for the results page, so I can take a look and tell you what is happening. FEL is generally the best 'default' method, unless your alignment is small (<15-20 sequences), where it will have low power, or very large (e.g. >200 sequences), where you will get the same power with SLAC, but will spend a lot less computer time on it:) Sergei |
Title: Re: Output NielsenYang.bf Post by Miguel on Dec 13th, 2008 at 12:19pm
Dear Sergei,
Thank you so much for your great help! Cheers, Miguel |
HyPhy message board » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |