Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on May 11, 2006
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2006 23(7):1444-1449; doi:10.1093/molbev/msl010
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/7/1444    most recent
msl010v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pollock, D. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pollock, D. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Research Article

Observations of Amino Acid Gain and Loss during Protein Evolution Are Explained by Statistical Bias

Richard A. Goldstein* and David D. Pollock{dagger}

* Division of Mathematical Biology, National Institute of Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, United Kingdom; and {dagger} Department of Biological Sciences, Biological Computation and Visualisation Center, Louisiana State University

E-mail: richard.goldstein{at}nimr.mrc.ac.uk.

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.

Key Words: amino acid bias • ancestral reconstruction • molecular evolution • parsimony


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.