--- EXPERIMENT NOTES




 --- EXPERIMENT PROPERTIES

#Wed Mar 21 20:06:44 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=
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/ADOPS1/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/input.fasta
input.names=
mrbayes.params=
codeml.params=



 --- PSRF SUMMARY

      Estimated marginal likelihoods for runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/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/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.lstat)

Run   Arithmetic mean   Harmonic mean
--------------------------------------
1     -30942.29        -30982.07
2     -30942.63        -30983.10
--------------------------------------
TOTAL   -30942.45        -30982.72
--------------------------------------


Model parameter summaries over the runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/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/HIV1_AMINO/POL_1_2/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.pstat".

95% HPD Interval
--------------------
Parameter         Mean      Variance     Lower       Upper       Median    min ESS*  avg ESS    PSRF+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL{all}         3.652787    0.011993    3.452191    3.873230    3.650705   1115.91   1116.69    1.000
r(A<->C){all}   0.072830    0.000014    0.065885    0.080567    0.072817    613.00    704.96    1.000
r(A<->G){all}   0.344438    0.000175    0.318355    0.369014    0.344282    420.44    458.08    1.005
r(A<->T){all}   0.036124    0.000007    0.031290    0.041551    0.036063    639.98    671.52    1.000
r(C<->G){all}   0.041966    0.000017    0.033663    0.049850    0.041881    513.94    548.55    1.000
r(C<->T){all}   0.460174    0.000201    0.432905    0.486998    0.460490    390.13    432.02    1.003
r(G<->T){all}   0.044467    0.000014    0.037350    0.052013    0.044417    703.42    767.98    1.000
pi(A){all}      0.409925    0.000050    0.395978    0.423599    0.410037    599.69    630.68    1.000
pi(C){all}      0.175991    0.000031    0.165953    0.187764    0.175924    544.01    599.83    1.002
pi(G){all}      0.207995    0.000033    0.197249    0.219535    0.207807    486.44    505.96    1.001
pi(T){all}      0.206089    0.000034    0.195426    0.218109    0.206094    511.83    551.81    1.000
alpha{1,2}      0.290473    0.000219    0.264507    0.321968    0.289507   1052.83   1088.38    1.000
alpha{3}        2.508548    0.061651    2.049025    3.007293    2.495418   1238.74   1241.53    1.000
pinvar{all}     0.276282    0.000290    0.243388    0.309045    0.276442   1100.84   1105.65    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	-29918.976986
Model 2: PositiveSelection	-29837.573841
Model 0: one-ratio	-31500.878468
Model 3: discrete	-29708.908189
Model 7: beta	-29760.429703
Model 8: beta&w>1	-29659.144059


Model 0 vs 1	3163.802963999995

Model 2 vs 1	162.80629000000044

Additional information for M1 vs M2:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: B.US.89.P896_89_6.U39362_)

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

    17 S      0.836         2.826
    34 N      0.964*        3.105
    36 L      0.997**       3.177
   101 D      1.000**       3.183
   260 D      0.983*        3.146
   344 Q      0.602         2.314
   348 K      0.999**       3.180
   382 V      1.000**       3.183
   423 T      0.992**       3.165
   471 Q      0.748         2.633
   513 A      0.988*        3.157
   589 S      0.968*        3.112
   605 S      0.991**       3.162
   620 H      0.988*        3.157
   691 A      1.000**       3.183
   821 T      1.000**       3.183

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: B.US.89.P896_89_6.U39362_)

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

    17 S      0.896         3.049 +- 0.798
    34 N      0.975*        3.236 +- 0.536
    36 L      0.998**       3.292 +- 0.413
   101 D      1.000**       3.295 +- 0.403
   260 D      0.989*        3.270 +- 0.467
   344 Q      0.701         2.574 +- 1.090
   348 K      0.999**       3.294 +- 0.408
   382 V      1.000**       3.295 +- 0.404
   423 T      0.995**       3.285 +- 0.431
   471 Q      0.812         2.839 +- 0.965
   513 A      0.993**       3.281 +- 0.442
   589 S      0.979*        3.246 +- 0.516
   605 S      0.995**       3.285 +- 0.433
   620 H      0.993**       3.279 +- 0.445
   691 A      1.000**       3.295 +- 0.403
   821 T      1.000**       3.295 +- 0.403


Model 8 vs 7	202.57128800000646

Additional information for M7 vs M8:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: B.US.89.P896_89_6.U39362_)

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

    12 K      0.862         2.147
    17 S      0.985*        2.350
    21 T      0.667         1.824
    34 N      0.999**       2.372
    36 L      1.000**       2.373
    37 S      0.833         2.099
    38 F      0.760         1.978
   101 D      1.000**       2.374
   260 D      1.000**       2.373
   299 S      0.965*        2.315
   344 Q      0.970*        2.325
   348 K      1.000**       2.374
   382 V      1.000**       2.374
   423 T      1.000**       2.373
   471 Q      0.985*        2.349
   513 A      0.999**       2.372
   572 V      0.766         1.988
   589 S      0.999**       2.372
   605 S      0.999**       2.372
   620 H      0.999**       2.373
   691 A      1.000**       2.374
   821 T      1.000**       2.374

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: B.US.89.P896_89_6.U39362_)

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

    12 K      0.784         2.155 +- 0.659
    17 S      0.979*        2.467 +- 0.227
    21 T      0.679         1.977 +- 0.763
    34 N      0.996**       2.494 +- 0.100
    36 L      1.000**       2.499 +- 0.035
    37 S      0.757         2.110 +- 0.688
    38 F      0.782         2.145 +- 0.675
   101 D      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.004
   260 D      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.071
   299 S      0.924         2.379 +- 0.421
   344 Q      0.939         2.403 +- 0.380
   348 K      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.025
   382 V      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.008
   423 T      0.999**       2.498 +- 0.056
   471 Q      0.967*        2.448 +- 0.283
   513 A      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.067
   572 V      0.511         1.724 +- 0.795
   589 S      0.996**       2.494 +- 0.100
   605 S      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.065
   620 H      0.998**       2.497 +- 0.066
   691 A      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.004
   821 T      1.000**       2.500 +- 0.006