--- EXPERIMENT NOTES




 --- EXPERIMENT PROPERTIES

#Mon Mar 19 09:39:02 WET 2018
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=/usr/bin/
input.sequences=
mrbayes.pburnin=2500
mrbayes.bin=mb
tcoffee.bin=t_coffee
mrbayes.dir=/usr/bin/
tcoffee.dir=
tcoffee.minScore=3
input.fasta=/opt/ADOPS/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/input.fasta
input.names=
mrbayes.params=
codeml.params=



 --- PSRF SUMMARY

      Estimated marginal likelihoods for runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/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/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.lstat)

Run   Arithmetic mean   Harmonic mean
--------------------------------------
1     -18336.02        -18377.73
2     -18334.19        -18377.40
--------------------------------------
TOTAL   -18334.74        -18377.58
--------------------------------------


Model parameter summaries over the runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/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/HIV1_A1/GAG_1_3/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.pstat".

95% HPD Interval
--------------------
Parameter         Mean      Variance     Lower       Upper       Median    min ESS*  avg ESS    PSRF+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL{all}         4.026504    0.019969    3.752870    4.299663    4.023954   1175.84   1338.42    1.000
r(A<->C){all}   0.088545    0.000029    0.077834    0.098794    0.088426    730.02    799.71    1.001
r(A<->G){all}   0.290144    0.000218    0.261671    0.318327    0.289661    404.25    435.77    1.000
r(A<->T){all}   0.045460    0.000018    0.037590    0.053881    0.045224    653.07    763.55    1.000
r(C<->G){all}   0.049818    0.000029    0.039570    0.060784    0.049794    619.70    735.89    1.001
r(C<->T){all}   0.470715    0.000295    0.438789    0.503835    0.470604    396.65    426.23    1.000
r(G<->T){all}   0.055318    0.000031    0.045161    0.066733    0.055182    682.92    709.87    1.001
pi(A){all}      0.409405    0.000091    0.391819    0.429154    0.409359    610.67    716.82    1.000
pi(C){all}      0.192988    0.000055    0.178283    0.207081    0.193025    572.17    584.13    1.000
pi(G){all}      0.218744    0.000060    0.204618    0.234338    0.218596    581.92    657.23    1.001
pi(T){all}      0.178863    0.000054    0.165255    0.193645    0.178690    550.52    603.91    1.000
alpha{1,2}      0.334030    0.000478    0.292183    0.375795    0.332230   1203.79   1243.41    1.001
alpha{3}        2.223434    0.069419    1.729036    2.743273    2.203580   1313.74   1368.45    1.000
pinvar{all}     0.190207    0.000458    0.148178    0.232520    0.190282    956.31   1042.92    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	-16205.491699
Model 2: PositiveSelection	-16120.60129
Model 0: one-ratio	-17104.802154
Model 3: discrete	-16055.996365
Model 7: beta	-16113.182856
Model 8: beta&w>1	-16034.032634


Model 0 vs 1	1798.6209100000015

Model 2 vs 1	169.78081799999927

Additional information for M1 vs M2:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: C.ZA.06.CAP040_2_01.JF704683_)

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

    13 K      0.975*        2.915
    77 F      1.000**       2.963
    82 T      0.502         1.986
    89 K      1.000**       2.963
    91 E      0.805         2.581
   115 A      0.997**       2.958
   116 D      0.969*        2.903
   135 A      0.999**       2.961
   204 L      0.998**       2.960
   212 V      0.959*        2.883
   241 S      1.000**       2.963
   269 V      0.998**       2.959
   292 C      0.976*        2.916
   346 S      0.509         1.999
   361 S      0.969*        2.902
   449 T      1.000**       2.963
   450 Q      0.937         2.840
   454 P      1.000**       2.963
   455 T      0.968*        2.900

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: C.ZA.06.CAP040_2_01.JF704683_)

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

    13 K      0.933         3.110 +- 0.700
    77 F      1.000**       3.274 +- 0.419
    89 K      1.000**       3.274 +- 0.418
    91 E      0.564         2.210 +- 1.123
   115 A      0.996**       3.265 +- 0.443
   116 D      0.932         3.111 +- 0.702
   135 A      0.998**       3.271 +- 0.427
   204 L      0.998**       3.270 +- 0.430
   212 V      0.924         3.092 +- 0.727
   241 S      1.000**       3.274 +- 0.418
   269 V      0.997**       3.267 +- 0.437
   292 C      0.959*        3.178 +- 0.610
   361 S      0.924         3.091 +- 0.725
   449 T      1.000**       3.274 +- 0.418
   450 Q      0.904         3.051 +- 0.779
   454 P      1.000**       3.274 +- 0.418
   455 T      0.944         3.143 +- 0.662


Model 8 vs 7	158.30044400000043

Additional information for M7 vs M8:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: C.ZA.06.CAP040_2_01.JF704683_)

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

    13 K      0.991**       2.324
    26 H      0.563         1.689
    28 M      0.785         2.019
    65 A      0.762         1.982
    77 F      1.000**       2.336
    82 T      0.772         1.997
    89 K      1.000**       2.337
    91 E      0.930         2.234
   115 A      0.999**       2.335
   116 D      0.987*        2.318
   127 L      0.517         1.609
   135 A      0.999**       2.336
   204 L      0.999**       2.335
   212 V      0.984*        2.313
   241 S      1.000**       2.337
   269 V      0.999**       2.335
   292 C      0.990**       2.323
   346 S      0.776         2.004
   361 S      0.986*        2.316
   449 T      1.000**       2.337
   450 Q      0.969*        2.291
   454 P      1.000**       2.337
   455 T      0.987*        2.317

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: C.ZA.06.CAP040_2_01.JF704683_)

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

    13 K      0.976*        2.462 +- 0.241
    28 M      0.532         1.764 +- 0.785
    65 A      0.661         1.959 +- 0.757
    77 F      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.022
    82 T      0.659         1.957 +- 0.756
    89 K      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.005
    91 E      0.840         2.249 +- 0.576
   115 A      0.997**       2.496 +- 0.083
   116 D      0.972*        2.456 +- 0.260
   135 A      0.999**       2.498 +- 0.053
   204 L      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.063
   212 V      0.970*        2.452 +- 0.271
   241 S      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.008
   269 V      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.070
   292 C      0.983*        2.473 +- 0.206
   346 S      0.636         1.923 +- 0.764
   361 S      0.968*        2.450 +- 0.277
   449 T      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.003
   450 Q      0.953*        2.426 +- 0.335
   454 P      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.001
   455 T      0.977*        2.464 +- 0.236