4.6 Article

Oh brother, where art thou? A Bayes factor test for recombination with uncertain heritage

Journal

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 715-728

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/10635150290102384

Keywords

Bayes factor; MCMC; multiple change-point model; phylogenetics

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA16042] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM08185, GM08042] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current methods to identify recombination between subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) fall into a sequential testing trap, in which significance is assessed conditional on parental representative sequences and crossover points (COPs) that maximize the same test statistic. We overcame this shortfall by testing for recombination while inferring parental heritage and COPs using an extended Bayesian multiple change-point model. The model assumes that aligned molecular sequence data consist of an unknown number of contiguous segments that may support alternative topologies or varying evolutionary pressures. We allowed for heterogeneity in the substitution process and specifically tested for intersubtype recombination using Bayes factors. We also developed a new class of priors to assess significance across a wide range of support for recombination in the data. We applied our method to three putative gag gene recombinants. HIV-1 isolate RW024 decisively supported recombination with an inferred parental heritage of AD and a COP 95% Bayesian credible interval of (1152, 1178) using the HXB2 numbering scheme. HIV-1 isolate VI557 barely supported recombination. HIV-1 isolate RF decisively rejected recombination as expected, given that the sequence is commonly used as a reference sequence for subtype B. We employed scaled regeneration quantile plots to assess convergence and found this approach convenient to use even for our variable dimensional model parameter space.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available