Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Wayne Delport

dblp:60/7063 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3 · 3 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
phylogenetics
0.112010
Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular evolution
recombination detection
0.112010
Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology
evolutionary biology
0.012010
Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology › genomics › viral genomics
HIV-1 subtyping
0.012010
Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology · Bioinform. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

evolutionary fingerprinting · 0.1algorithmic methods for recombination detection · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Datamonkey 2010: a suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for evolutionary biology
abstract
Datamonkey is a popular web-based suite of phylogenetic analysis tools for use in evolutionary biology. Since the original release in 2005, we have expanded the analysis options to include recently developed algorithmic methods for recombination detection, evolutionary fingerprinting of genes, codon model selection, co-evolution between sites, identification of sites, which rapidly escape host-immune pressure and HIV-1 subtype assignment. The traditional selection tools have also been augmented to include recent developments in the field. Here, we summarize the analyses options currently available on Datamonkey, and provide guidelines for their use in evolutionary biology. Availability and documentation: http://www.datamonkey.org.
Wayne Delport, Art F. Y. Poon, Simon D. W. Frost, Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond
Bioinform.1
2010 CodonTest: Modeling Amino Acid Substitution Preferences in Coding Sequences
abstract
Codon models of evolution have facilitated the interpretation of selective forces operating on genomes. These models, however, assume a single rate of non-synonymous substitution irrespective of the nature of amino acids being exchanged. Recent developments have shown that models which allow for amino acid pairs to have independent rates of substitution offer improved fit over single rate models. However, these approaches have been limited by the necessity for large alignments in their estimation. An alternative approach is to assume that substitution rates between amino acid pairs can be subdivided into rate classes, dependent on the information content of the alignment. However, given the combinatorially large number of such models, an efficient model search strategy is needed. Here we develop a Genetic Algorithm (GA) method for the estimation of such models. A GA is used to assign amino acid substitution pairs to a series of rate classes, where is estimated from the alignment. Other parameters of the phylogenetic Markov model, including substitution rates, character frequencies and branch lengths are estimated using standard maximum likelihood optimization procedures. We apply the GA to empirical alignments and show improved model fit over existing models of codon evolution. Our results suggest that current models are poor approximations of protein evolution and thus gene and organism specific multi-rate models that incorporate amino acid substitution biases are preferred. We further anticipate that the clustering of amino acid substitution rates into classes will be biologically informative, such that genes with similar functions exhibit similar clustering, and hence this clustering will be useful for the evolutionary fingerprinting of genes.
Wayne Delport, Konrad Scheffler, Gordon Botha, Michael B. Gravenor, Spencer V. Muse, Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond
PLoS Comput. Biol.1
2009 Models of coding sequence evolution
abstract
Probabilistic models of sequence evolution are in widespread use in phylogenetics and molecular sequence evolution. These models have become increasingly sophisticated and combined with statistical model comparison techniques have helped to shed light on how genes and proteins evolve. Models of codon evolution have been particularly useful, because, in addition to providing a significant improvement in model realism for protein-coding sequences, codon models can also be designed to test hypotheses about the selective pressures that shape the evolution of the sequences. Such models typically assume a phylogeny and can be used to identify sites or lineages that have evolved adaptively. Recently some of the key assumptions that underlie phylogenetic tests of selection have been questioned, such as the assumption that the rate of synonymous changes is constant across sites or that a single phylogenetic tree can be assumed at all sites for recombining sequences. While some of these issues have been addressed through the development of novel methods, others remain as caveats that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Here, we outline the theory of codon models and their application to the detection of positive selection. We review some of the more recent developments that have improved their power and utility, laying a foundation for further advances in the modeling of coding sequence evolution.
Wayne Delport, Konrad Scheffler, Cathal Seoighe
Briefings Bioinform.1