--- EXPERIMENT NOTES




 --- EXPERIMENT PROPERTIES

#Tue Nov 08 15:32:07 WET 2016
codeml.models=0 1 2 3 7 8
mrbayes.mpich=
mrbayes.ngen=1000000
tcoffee.alignMethod=CLUSTALW2
tcoffee.params=
tcoffee.maxSeqs=0
codeml.bin=codeml
mrbayes.tburnin=2500
codeml.dir=
input.sequences=
mrbayes.pburnin=2500
mrbayes.bin=mb_adops
tcoffee.bin=t_coffee_ADOPS
mrbayes.dir=/usr/bin/
tcoffee.dir=
tcoffee.minScore=3
input.fasta=/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/input.fasta
input.names=
mrbayes.params=
codeml.params=



 --- PSRF SUMMARY

      Estimated marginal likelihoods for runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run2.p":
(Use the harmonic mean for Bayes factor comparisons of models)

(Values are saved to the file /opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.lstat)

Run   Arithmetic mean   Harmonic mean
--------------------------------------
1      -5083.72         -5101.85
2      -5083.89         -5100.74
--------------------------------------
TOTAL    -5083.80         -5101.44
--------------------------------------


Model parameter summaries over the runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run2.p":
Summaries are based on a total of 3002 samples from 2 runs.
Each run produced 2001 samples of which 1501 samples were included.
Parameter summaries saved to file "/opt/ADOPS/166/CG5151-PF/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.pstat".

95% HPD Interval
--------------------
Parameter         Mean      Variance     Lower       Upper       Median    min ESS*  avg ESS    PSRF+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL{all}         0.700905    0.003266    0.592763    0.814960    0.698298   1304.33   1378.96    1.001
r(A<->C){all}   0.109343    0.000234    0.081469    0.140482    0.108634    888.73    960.89    1.000
r(A<->G){all}   0.199707    0.000518    0.157103    0.242215    0.198365    822.30    842.53    1.000
r(A<->T){all}   0.185639    0.000759    0.132655    0.239914    0.184025    909.44   1017.11    1.000
r(C<->G){all}   0.069245    0.000120    0.048455    0.091015    0.068522   1063.03   1105.51    1.000
r(C<->T){all}   0.338576    0.000866    0.282127    0.396102    0.338658    888.95    903.59    1.000
r(G<->T){all}   0.097491    0.000338    0.063437    0.135248    0.097010    906.58    913.13    1.000
pi(A){all}      0.239218    0.000108    0.218402    0.259765    0.239106    990.96   1046.71    1.000
pi(C){all}      0.340855    0.000133    0.319028    0.364161    0.340630   1087.34   1136.70    1.000
pi(G){all}      0.269703    0.000113    0.248525    0.290610    0.269454   1231.72   1244.42    1.000
pi(T){all}      0.150224    0.000080    0.132796    0.167270    0.150121   1043.80   1146.65    1.001
alpha{1,2}      0.265225    0.001765    0.194572    0.346574    0.259737   1314.95   1340.41    1.000
alpha{3}        3.010950    0.810517    1.438061    4.819418    2.926399   1418.81   1442.14    1.001
pinvar{all}     0.452561    0.001691    0.372007    0.530376    0.456120   1202.79   1351.89    1.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Convergence diagnostic (ESS = Estimated Sample Size); min and avg values
correspond to minimal and average ESS among runs.
ESS value below 100 may indicate that the parameter is undersampled.
+ Convergence diagnostic (PSRF = Potential Scale Reduction Factor; Gelman
and Rubin, 1992) should approach 1.0 as runs converge.


Setting sumt conformat to Simple



 --- CODEML SUMMARY

Model 1: NearlyNeutral	-4163.924639
Model 2: PositiveSelection	-4162.884275
Model 0: one-ratio	-4217.146326
Model 3: discrete	-4160.953607
Model 7: beta	-4164.502343
Model 8: beta&w>1	-4161.139049


Model 0 vs 1	106.4433740000004

Model 2 vs 1	2.0807279999989987

Model 8 vs 7	6.726587999999538

Additional information for M7 vs M8:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: D_melanogaster_CG5151-PF)

            Pr(w>1)     post mean +- SE for w

    97 A      0.952*        3.365
   293 T      0.967*        3.407

Bayes Empirical Bayes (BEB) analysis (Yang, Wong & Nielsen 2005. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1107-1118)
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: D_melanogaster_CG5151-PF)

            Pr(w>1)     post mean +- SE for w

    97 A      0.969*        1.502 +- 0.219
    98 A      0.858         1.396 +- 0.371
   102 D      0.614         1.135 +- 0.513
   252 A      0.680         1.207 +- 0.492
   293 T      0.973*        1.505 +- 0.213
   392 S      0.637         1.173 +- 0.477
   394 S      0.861         1.403 +- 0.353
   397 L      0.686         1.191 +- 0.537
   398 A      0.904         1.444 +- 0.305
   401 E      0.642         1.165 +- 0.504
   403 T      0.752         1.293 +- 0.431
   405 T      0.842         1.379 +- 0.386