Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Infect Genet Evol. 2008 Apr 20;8(5):566–576. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2008.04.006

Table 2.

Positive selection in coding regions.

LRT and parameters prfA plcA hly mpl actA plcB
M0 vs M3 LRTa 6.5852 52.3129* 5.0478 18.3828* 153.0975* 0.0
ωb 1.20 2.12 0.61 1.05 2.39 0.105
pc 0.0169 0.0696 0.0347 0.0917 0.0978 0.3034

M1a vs M2a LRTa 0.02886 5.2502 0.0 0.0019 12.3971* 0.0005
ωb 1.20 2.12 1.00 1.04 2.55 1.00
pc 0.0169 0.0696 0.0109 0.0917 0.0771 0.00
aa sites under pos. selectiond - - - - 461 (97%) -

M7 vs M8 LRTa 2.1510 5.2529 0.7376 0.0097 13.7596* 0.0
ωb 1.20 2.12 1.00 1.07 2.40 1.00
pc 0.0169 0.0696 0.0175 0.0882 0.0955 0.00
aa sites under pos. selectiond - aa 119 - - aa 112 (97%) -
(95%) aa 123 (96%)
aa 291 (97%)
aa 449 (97%)
aa 461 (99%)
aa 522 (95%)

Lineage I LRTa NAe 0.0 0.0 6.2440* 1.4834 0.0
ωb NAe 1.00 1.00 7.28 6.77 1.00
pc NAe 0.00 0.0056 0.0151 0.174 0.00
aa sites under pos. selectiond NAe - - aa 103 - -
(98%)

Lineage II LRTa 0.0 4.6409* 1.1946 0.0001 5.0142* 0.0
ωb 1.00 2.82 3.95 1.00 3.59 1.00
pc 0.00 0.0381 0.0044 0.0802 0.0245 0.2064
aa sites under pos. selectiond - - - - - -
a

This row reports the results for the likelihood ratio test (LRT) for different models (e.g., M0 versus M3; lineage specific tests are indicated as “Lineage I LRT” and “Lineage II LRT”); the value shown represents the likelihood ratio between the two models;

*

a indicates that the null model can be rejected in favor to the alternative model (P < 0.05; significance is calculated using a χ2-distribution with degrees of freedom equals the difference in the number of parameters estimated for the alternative model in comparison to the null model

b

ω = dN/dS for the site category that allows ω to be larger than 1 (i.e., ω2 in M2, M3, and the branch specific models; ω in M8)

c

p = the proportion of sites under positive selection

d

aa site identified by Bayes Empirical Bayes (BEB) as having probability > 95% of being under positive selection are shown; posterior probabilities are given in parenthesis; “−“ indicates that no sites showed probability ≥ 95% of having evolved by positive selection

e

NA, not assessed because no amino acid changes were observed within lineage I in prfA