4.8 Article

ALF-A Simulation Framework for Genome Evolution

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 1115-1123

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msr268

关键词

simulation; genome evolution; codon models; indel; lateral gene transfer; GC-content amelioration

资金

  1. ETH Zurich
  2. Swiss Science Foundation [31003A/127325]
  3. Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_127325] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In computational evolutionary biology, verification and benchmarking is a challenging task because the evolutionary history of studied biological entities is usually not known. Computer programs for simulating sequence evolution in silico have shown to be viable test beds for the verification of newly developed methods and to compare different algorithms. However, current simulation packages tend to focus either on gene-level aspects of genome evolution such as character substitutions and insertions and deletions (indels) or on genome-level aspects such as genome rearrangement and speciation events. Here, we introduce Artificial Life Framework (ALF), which aims at simulating the entire range of evolutionary forces that act on genomes: nucleotide, codon, or amino acid substitution (under simple or mixture models), indels, GC-content amelioration, gene duplication, gene loss, gene fusion, gene fission, genome rearrangement, lateral gene transfer (LGT), or speciation. The other distinctive feature of ALF is its user-friendly yet powerful web interface. We illustrate the utility of ALF with two possible applications: 1) we reanalyze data from a study of selection after globin gene duplication and test the statistical significance of the original conclusions and 2) we demonstrate that LGT can dramatically decrease the accuracy of two well-established orthology inference methods. ALF is available as a stand-alone application or via a web interface at http://www.cbrg.ethz.ch/alf.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据