423 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21087944)
1. Statistical properties of the branch-site test of positive selection.
Yang Z; dos Reis M
Mol Biol Evol; 2011 Mar; 28(3):1217-28. PubMed ID: 21087944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of insertions, deletions, and alignment errors on the branch-site test of positive selection.
Fletcher W; Yang Z
Mol Biol Evol; 2010 Oct; 27(10):2257-67. PubMed ID: 20447933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Multiple hypothesis testing to detect lineages under positive selection that affects only a few sites.
Anisimova M; Yang Z
Mol Biol Evol; 2007 May; 24(5):1219-28. PubMed ID: 17339634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Frequent false detection of positive selection by the likelihood method with branch-site models.
Zhang J
Mol Biol Evol; 2004 Jul; 21(7):1332-9. PubMed ID: 15014150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Positive Darwinian selection at the pantophysin (Pan I) locus in marine gadid fishes.
Pogson GH; Mesa KA
Mol Biol Evol; 2004 Jan; 21(1):65-75. PubMed ID: 12949133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Likelihood-based clustering (LiBaC) for codon models, a method for grouping sites according to similarities in the underlying process of evolution.
Bao L; Gu H; Dunn KA; Bielawski JP
Mol Biol Evol; 2008 Sep; 25(9):1995-2007. PubMed ID: 18586695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Robust inference of positive selection from recombining coding sequences.
Scheffler K; Martin DP; Seoighe C
Bioinformatics; 2006 Oct; 22(20):2493-9. PubMed ID: 16895925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of an improved branch-site likelihood method for detecting positive selection at the molecular level.
Zhang J; Nielsen R; Yang Z
Mol Biol Evol; 2005 Dec; 22(12):2472-9. PubMed ID: 16107592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Proceedings of the SMBE Tri-National Young Investigators' Workshop 2005. Control of the false discovery rate applied to the detection of positively selected amino acid sites.
Guindon S; Black M; Rodrigo A;
Mol Biol Evol; 2006 May; 23(5):919-26. PubMed ID: 16423864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Large-scale analyses of synonymous substitution rates can be sensitive to assumptions about the process of mutation.
Aris-Brosou S; Bielawski JP
Gene; 2006 Aug; 378():58-64. PubMed ID: 16797879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Performance of standard and stochastic branch-site models for detecting positive selection among coding sequences.
Lu A; Guindon S
Mol Biol Evol; 2014 Feb; 31(2):484-95. PubMed ID: 24132121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. False-positive selection identified by ML-based methods: examples from the Sig1 gene of the diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii and the tax gene of a human T-cell lymphotropic virus.
Suzuki Y; Nei M
Mol Biol Evol; 2004 May; 21(5):914-21. PubMed ID: 15014169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Looking for Darwin in genomic sequences--validity and success of statistical methods.
Zhai W; Nielsen R; Goldman N; Yang Z
Mol Biol Evol; 2012 Oct; 29(10):2889-93. PubMed ID: 22490825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Codon-substitution models for detecting molecular adaptation at individual sites along specific lineages.
Yang Z; Nielsen R
Mol Biol Evol; 2002 Jun; 19(6):908-17. PubMed ID: 12032247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detecting non-coding selective pressure in coding regions.
Chen H; Blanchette M
BMC Evol Biol; 2007 Feb; 7 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S9. PubMed ID: 17288582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The roles of positive and negative selection in the molecular evolution of insect endosymbionts.
Fry AJ; Wernegreen JJ
Gene; 2005 Aug; 355():1-10. PubMed ID: 16039807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The branch-site test of positive selection is surprisingly robust but lacks power under synonymous substitution saturation and variation in GC.
Gharib WH; Robinson-Rechavi M
Mol Biol Evol; 2013 Jul; 30(7):1675-86. PubMed ID: 23558341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A new test for detecting recent positive selection that is free from the confounding impacts of demography.
Li H
Mol Biol Evol; 2011 Jan; 28(1):365-75. PubMed ID: 20709734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Site-to-site variation of synonymous substitution rates.
Pond SK; Muse SV
Mol Biol Evol; 2005 Dec; 22(12):2375-85. PubMed ID: 16107593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The comparative method rules! Codon volatility cannot detect positive Darwinian selection using a single genome sequence.
Dagan T; Graur D
Mol Biol Evol; 2005 Mar; 22(3):496-500. PubMed ID: 15525696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
