title: Context-dependent codon partition models provide significant increases in model fit in atpB and rbcL protein-coding genes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Accurate modelling of substitution processes in protein-coding sequences is often hampered by the computational burdens associated with full codon models. Lately, codon partition models have been proposed as a viable alternative, mimicking the substitution behaviour of codon models at a low computational cost. Such codon partition models however impose independent evolution of the different codon positions, which is overly restrictive from a biological point of view. Given that empirical research has provided indications of context-dependent substitution patterns at four-fold degenerate sites, we take those indications into account in this paper.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We present so-called context-dependent codon partition models to assess previous empirical claims that the evolution of four-fold degenerate sites is strongly dependent on the composition of its two flanking bases. To this end, we have estimated and compared various existing independent models, codon models, codon partition models and context-dependent codon partition models for the atpB and rbcL genes of the chloroplast genome, which are frequently used in plant systematics. Such context-dependent codon partition models employ a full dependency scheme for four-fold degenerate sites, whilst maintaining the independence assumption for the first and second codon positions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We show that, both in the atpB and rbcL alignments of a collection of land plants, these context-dependent codon partition models significantly improve model fit over existing codon partition models. Using Bayes factors based on thermodynamic integration, we show that in both datasets the same context-dependent codon partition model yields the largest increase in model fit compared to an independent evolutionary model. Context-dependent codon partition models hence perform closer to codon models, which remain the best performing models at a drastically increased computational cost, compared to codon partition models, but remain computationally interesting alternatives to codon models. Finally, we observe that the substitution patterns in both datasets are drastically different, leading to the conclusion that combined analysis of these two genes using a single model may not be advisable from a context-dependent point of view.
authors: Department of Plant Systems Biology, Ghent, Belgium.
authors: Guy
authors: G
authors: Baele
authors: Yves
authors: Y
authors: Van de Peer
authors: Stijn
authors: S
authors: Vansteelandt
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jun 14;102(24):8639-43
references: 15932942
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Feb;26(2):255-71
references: 18922761
references: Am J Bot. 2002 Nov;89(11):1826-42
references: 21665611
references: Syst Biol. 2005 Oct;54(5):808-18
references: 16243764
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Apr 30;9:87
references: 19405957
references: Science. 2001 Dec 14;294(5550):2351-3
references: 11743201
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2010 Aug 10;10:244
references: 20698960
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Sep;25(9):1979-94
references: 18603620
references: Science. 2001 Dec 14;294(5550):2310-4
references: 11743192
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Sep;11(9):367-72
references: 21237881
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Oct 10;92(21):9717-21
references: 7568204
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1994 Sep;11(5):715-24
references: 7968485
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1994 Sep;11(5):725-36
references: 7968486
references: Trends Genet. 2005 Jun;21(6):307-9
references: 15922824
references: J Mol Evol. 2010 Jul;71(1):34-50
references: 20623275
references: Genetics. 2006 Jan;172(1):569-77
references: 16219784
references: J Mol Evol. 1985;22(2):160-74
references: 3934395
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Jan;23(1):7-9
references: 16177232
references: J Mol Evol. 1981;17(6):368-76
references: 7288891
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Mar;21(3):612-24
references: 14739253
references: J Mol Evol. 1997 Sep;45(3):227-31
references: 9302315
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Jun;18(6):1001-13
references: 11371589
references: Syst Biol. 2008 Oct;57(5):675-92
references: 18853356
references: Bioinformatics. 1998;14(9):817-8
references: 9918953
references: Syst Biol. 2006 Apr;55(2):195-207
references: 16522570
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 28;101(39):13994-4001
references: 15292512
references: J Mol Evol. 1984;20(1):86-93
references: 6429346
references: J Mol Evol. 1996 May;42(5):587-96
references: 8662011
references: Syst Biol. 2004 Dec;53(6):877-88
references: 15764557
references: Am J Bot. 2006 Apr;93(4):607-19
references: 21646222