Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17288576›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2007

Inferring angiosperm phylogeny from EST data with widespread gene duplication.

Michael J Sanderson, Michelle M McMahon

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Are the duplication cost and Robinson-Foulds distance equivalent?Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. DrML: probabilistic modeling of gene duplications.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2014
    Article
  9. Refining discordant gene trees.BMC bioinformatics · 2014
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A consistent phylogenetic backbone for the fungi.Molecular biology and evolution · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael J SandersonDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. sanderm@email.arizona.edu
Michelle M McMahon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost studies inferring species phylogenies use sequences from single copy genes or sets of orthologs culled from gene families. For taxa such as plants, with very high levels of gene duplication in their nuclear genomes, this has limited the exploitation of nuclear sequences for phylogenetic studies, such as those available in large EST libraries. One rarely used method of inference, gene tree parsimony, can infer species trees from gene families undergoing duplication and loss, but its performance has not been evaluated at a phylogenomic scale for EST data in plants.

resultsA gene tree parsimony analysis based on EST data was undertaken for six angiosperm model species and Pinus, an outgroup. Although a large fraction of the tentative consensus sequences obtained from the TIGR database of ESTs was assembled into homologous clusters too small to be phylogenetically informative, some 557 clusters contained promising levels of information. Based on maximum likelihood estimates of the gene trees obtained from these clusters, gene tree parsimony correctly inferred the accepted species tree with strong statistical support. A slight variant of this species tree was obtained when maximum parsimony was used to infer the individual gene trees instead.

conclusionDespite the complexity of the EST data and the relatively small fraction eventually used in inferring a species tree, the gene tree parsimony method performed well in the face of very high apparent rates of duplication.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEvolution, MolecularExpressed Sequence TagsGene DuplicationPhylogenyMagnoliopsidaModels, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID17288576
PMCPMC1796612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.