--- EXPERIMENT NOTES




 --- EXPERIMENT PROPERTIES

#Mon Nov 06 13:15:36 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=/opt/ADOPS1/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/input.fasta
input.names=
mrbayes.params=
codeml.params=



 --- PSRF SUMMARY

      Estimated marginal likelihoods for runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/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/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.lstat)

Run   Arithmetic mean   Harmonic mean
--------------------------------------
1      -2939.98         -3000.94
2      -2933.00         -2993.59
--------------------------------------
TOTAL    -2933.69         -3000.24
--------------------------------------


Model parameter summaries over the runs sampled in files
"/opt/ADOPS1/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.run1.p" and "/opt/ADOPS1/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/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/ZikaADOPSresults/NS4B/batch/allfiles/mrbayes/input.fasta.fasta.mrb.pstat".

95% HPD Interval
--------------------
Parameter         Mean      Variance     Lower       Upper       Median    min ESS*  avg ESS    PSRF+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL{all}         1.416664    0.021894    1.144594    1.704740    1.409123    938.02   1032.41    1.001
r(A<->C){all}   0.029245    0.000074    0.014166    0.047091    0.028204    755.13    838.01    1.000
r(A<->G){all}   0.229793    0.001292    0.161813    0.298938    0.228658    499.34    503.93    1.000
r(A<->T){all}   0.043781    0.000134    0.022925    0.067015    0.042328    711.52    763.36    1.000
r(C<->G){all}   0.009468    0.000025    0.001129    0.019259    0.008778    904.09    947.15    1.001
r(C<->T){all}   0.656395    0.001782    0.576077    0.736875    0.656700    516.25    521.86    1.000
r(G<->T){all}   0.031318    0.000091    0.013531    0.049608    0.030401    803.48    853.26    1.001
pi(A){all}      0.256249    0.000206    0.228777    0.283293    0.256124   1045.58   1093.34    1.000
pi(C){all}      0.263423    0.000210    0.234388    0.291195    0.263694   1110.95   1120.57    1.000
pi(G){all}      0.260052    0.000208    0.232000    0.289091    0.259771    820.09    962.05    1.000
pi(T){all}      0.220276    0.000176    0.197059    0.247857    0.219762    940.37   1020.35    1.001
alpha{1,2}      0.162662    0.000298    0.131484    0.198537    0.160872    819.60    975.68    1.000
alpha{3}        3.022094    0.759642    1.508922    4.766423    2.904284   1096.66   1140.76    1.000
pinvar{all}     0.219410    0.002344    0.125732    0.307428    0.221905   1113.15   1238.73    1.002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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	-2745.165193
Model 2: PositiveSelection	-2744.894868
Model 0: one-ratio	-2795.013585
Model 3: discrete	-2744.89476
Model 7: beta	-2748.70692
Model 8: beta&w>1	-2744.954962


Model 0 vs 1	99.69678400000066

Model 2 vs 1	0.5406499999999141

Model 8 vs 7	7.503916000000572

Additional information for M7 vs M8:
Naive Empirical Bayes (NEB) analysis
Positively selected sites (*: P>95%; **: P>99%)
(amino acids refer to 1st sequence: gb:EU545988|Organism:Zika_virus|Strain_Name:FSM|Protein_Name:nonstructural_protein_NS4B|Gene_Symbol:NS4B)

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

    14 S      0.877         1.036
    15 H      0.998**       1.173
    19 R      0.815         0.967
    23 G      0.840         0.995
    24 A      1.000**       1.175
    25 T      0.977*        1.149
    26 I      1.000**       1.175
    87 Y      0.998**       1.173
    88 A      1.000**       1.174
    91 F      0.934         1.100
    98 M      1.000**       1.175
   165 R      0.520         0.630
   176 I      0.897         1.059
   180 V      1.000**       1.174
   186 S      0.998**       1.173

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: gb:EU545988|Organism:Zika_virus|Strain_Name:FSM|Protein_Name:nonstructural_protein_NS4B|Gene_Symbol:NS4B)

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

    15 H      0.861         1.429 +- 0.411
    24 A      0.955*        1.523 +- 0.294
    26 I      0.905         1.475 +- 0.332
    87 Y      0.850         1.417 +- 0.421
    88 A      0.791         1.358 +- 0.438
    91 F      0.501         0.980 +- 0.614
    98 M      0.760         1.327 +- 0.419
   180 V      0.784         1.349 +- 0.436
   186 S      0.855         1.422 +- 0.414