--- EXPERIMENT NOTES




 --- EXPERIMENT PROPERTIES

#Mon Dec 11 21:35:32 WET 2017
codeml.models=0 1 2 3 7 8
mrbayes.mpich=
mrbayes.ngen=1000000
tcoffee.alignMethod=MUSCLE
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=
input.names=
mrbayes.params=
codeml.params=



 --- PSRF SUMMARY

      Estimated marginal likelihoods for runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/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/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.lstat)

Run   Arithmetic mean   Harmonic mean
--------------------------------------
1     -13892.08        -13917.01
2     -13892.03        -13912.22
--------------------------------------
TOTAL   -13892.06        -13916.32
--------------------------------------


Model parameter summaries over the runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/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/ADOPS1/pet1/Pint_S3_17/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.pstat".

95% HPD Interval
--------------------
Parameter         Mean      Variance     Lower       Upper       Median    min ESS*  avg ESS    PSRF+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL{all}         3.627405    0.013296    3.414461    3.857974    3.624874   1282.48   1363.12    1.000
r(A<->C){all}   0.128117    0.000091    0.110577    0.146800    0.127866    887.21    953.55    1.000
r(A<->G){all}   0.296704    0.000209    0.269182    0.325626    0.296791    662.49    670.84    1.002
r(A<->T){all}   0.092991    0.000043    0.079519    0.104516    0.092893    838.43    897.43    1.000
r(C<->G){all}   0.137858    0.000125    0.117557    0.160356    0.137439    837.38    905.78    1.000
r(C<->T){all}   0.262408    0.000178    0.235917    0.288525    0.262436    745.19    759.68    1.003
r(G<->T){all}   0.081922    0.000050    0.068487    0.095028    0.081634    983.71    997.62    1.000
pi(A){all}      0.311280    0.000090    0.291905    0.329012    0.311227    698.63    820.41    1.000
pi(C){all}      0.175507    0.000053    0.162181    0.189778    0.175307    605.52    675.52    1.000
pi(G){all}      0.188069    0.000064    0.172498    0.203645    0.188037    924.15    943.31    1.000
pi(T){all}      0.325144    0.000093    0.307347    0.344518    0.324877    712.01    843.28    1.000
alpha{1,2}      1.288866    0.025535    1.008151    1.602495    1.275239   1001.42   1104.21    1.000
alpha{3}        4.272607    0.705589    2.831418    5.992226    4.193261   1274.41   1387.71    1.000
pinvar{all}     0.050411    0.000394    0.014214    0.091680    0.050282   1090.03   1124.99    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	-12109.745604
Model 2: PositiveSelection	-12098.02715
Model 0: one-ratio	-12316.80654
Model 3: discrete	-12056.30451
Model 7: beta	-12079.892778
Model 8: beta&w>1	-12051.490486


Model 0 vs 1	414.1218719999997

Model 2 vs 1	23.436907999999676

Additional information for M1 vs M2:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: 1_Pintegrifolia_S3_A113_AY363972_AAR15913)

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

    50 V      0.795         2.086
    64 Y      0.860         2.175
    66 F      0.965*        2.319
    97 S      0.650         1.889
   100 V      0.562         1.768
   117 S      0.966*        2.321
   118 L      0.919         2.256
   149 S      0.596         1.815
   179 M      0.634         1.867
   199 I      0.962*        2.315
   202 W      0.776         2.061
   218 F      0.858         2.173
   219 A      0.906         2.239
   241 G      0.562         1.768
   263 P      0.733         2.002
   264 S      0.541         1.739
   336 T      0.874         2.195

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: 1_Pintegrifolia_S3_A113_AY363972_AAR15913)

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

    50 V      0.779         2.172 +- 0.628
    64 Y      0.859         2.293 +- 0.530
    66 F      0.964*        2.452 +- 0.291
    97 S      0.624         1.939 +- 0.730
   100 V      0.530         1.797 +- 0.752
   117 S      0.969*        2.459 +- 0.275
   118 L      0.918         2.382 +- 0.421
   149 S      0.557         1.837 +- 0.747
   179 M      0.603         1.906 +- 0.737
   199 I      0.965*        2.453 +- 0.290
   202 W      0.753         2.132 +- 0.651
   218 F      0.850         2.280 +- 0.542
   219 A      0.901         2.357 +- 0.456
   241 G      0.520         1.781 +- 0.751
   263 P      0.716         2.077 +- 0.681
   264 S      0.502         1.753 +- 0.752
   336 T      0.865         2.302 +- 0.519


Model 8 vs 7	56.8045839999977

Additional information for M7 vs M8:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: 1_Pintegrifolia_S3_A113_AY363972_AAR15913)

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

    50 V      0.966*        1.846
    64 Y      0.968*        1.847
    66 F      0.995**       1.879
    97 S      0.933         1.809
   100 V      0.907         1.779
   117 S      0.994**       1.877
   118 L      0.987*        1.870
   149 S      0.922         1.796
   176 D      0.777         1.630
   179 M      0.915         1.788
   199 I      0.992**       1.875
   202 W      0.962*        1.841
   218 F      0.980*        1.861
   219 A      0.987*        1.869
   241 G      0.905         1.776
   263 P      0.947         1.824
   264 S      0.898         1.770
   336 T      0.982*        1.864
   349 L      0.744         1.591

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: 1_Pintegrifolia_S3_A113_AY363972_AAR15913)

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

    50 V      0.923         2.249 +- 0.523
    64 Y      0.945         2.287 +- 0.480
    66 F      0.989*        2.350 +- 0.372
    97 S      0.847         2.129 +- 0.637
   100 V      0.785         2.028 +- 0.704
   117 S      0.990*        2.352 +- 0.370
   118 L      0.976*        2.331 +- 0.409
   149 S      0.793         2.040 +- 0.695
   176 D      0.526         1.600 +- 0.815
   179 M      0.801         2.054 +- 0.692
   199 I      0.987*        2.348 +- 0.378
   202 W      0.904         2.218 +- 0.557
   218 F      0.955*        2.299 +- 0.458
   219 A      0.971*        2.323 +- 0.420
   241 G      0.749         1.968 +- 0.734
   263 P      0.887         2.194 +- 0.584
   264 S      0.741         1.955 +- 0.738
   336 T      0.958*        2.304 +- 0.450