Talk:Ka/Ks ratio

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

John Timmer (December 29, 2015). "Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment". Ars Technica.

Synonymous sites[edit]

This article does not make it clear what is meant by a synonymous or non-synonymous site; the definitions of these also seem to be non-obvious (see http://pubmlst.org/software/analysis/start/manual/dsdn.shtml). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.110.213 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the talk page to make exactly the same point (ask the same question). i.e. what is a synonymous vs. a non-synonymous site? By site I take it to mean a column of a multiple sequence alignment, but how is a site synonymous or not? --Dan Bolser (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Ars Technica article mentioned in the header above, I came to this article to see if its readability could be improved for general readers. However, despite being a biologist (trained last century, admittedly), I came unstuck on this same issue that the two previous commentators did. I understand what synonymous means in the context of base changes (and that'd be easy to articulate for a general reader), but I can't work out what a synonymous site is. It's not helped by the fact that there's no linked article, nor are the articles that are linked helpful on this point. Can anyone advise? --PLUMBAGO 09:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm pretty used to improving biology articles, and am similarly qualified to User:Plumbago, but John Timmer had a point in his Ars Technica article about this particular Wiki-specimen. It's a bit embarrassing to have Signpost (6 Jan 2016) pointing to bad science writing here, so perhaps we can work out what this article was trying to say, and do it a little less "impenetrably". At the moment, it's frankly at mermaid level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, the number of synonymous "sites" is calculated as the number of possible changes in a base that would be synonymous. Any base can change to any of the three other bases. A codon (three bases) can thus change to 9 possible codons (any one change in one of the three bases). The number of synonymous sites was originally calculated as the number of possible codon changes that are synonymous (same for non-synonymous sites). This is the simplest model assuming that all of the 9 base changes are equally likely (Nei & Gojobori's version of dN/dS, 1986). However, since not all base changes are equally possible, more advanced maximum-likelihood methods take the different mutability of each base into account in calculated the relative neutral probability of synonymous and non-synonymous changes. 185.118.205.91 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]