The effects of alignment error and alignment filtering on the sitewise detection of positive selection.

When detecting positive selection in proteins, the prevalence of errors resulting from misalignment and the ability of alignment filters to mitigate such errors are not well understood, but filters are commonly applied to try to avoid false positive results. Focusing on the sitewise detection of positive selection across a wide range of divergence levels and indel rates, we performed simulation experiments to quantify the false positives and false negatives introduced by alignment error and the ability of alignment filters to improve performance. We found that some aligners led to many false positives, whereas others resulted in very few. False negatives were a problem for all aligners, increasing with sequence divergence. Of the aligners tested, PRANK's codon-based alignments consistently performed the best and ClustalW performed the worst. Of the filters tested, GUIDANCE performed the best and Gblocks performed the worst. Although some filters showed good ability to reduce the error rates from ClustalW and MAFFT alignments, none were found to substantially improve the performance of PRANK alignments under most conditions. Our results revealed distinct trends in error rates and power levels for aligners and filters within a biologically plausible parameter space. With the best aligner, a low false positive rate was maintained even with extremely divergent indel-prone sequences. Controls using the true alignment and an optimal filtering method suggested that performance improvements could be gained by improving aligners or filters to reduce the prevalence of false negatives, especially at higher divergence levels and indel rates.