Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18852109›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2008

Dealing with incongruence in phylogenomic analyses.

Nicolas Galtier, Vincent Daubin

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Phylogenomic analysis ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nicolas GaltierCNRS UMR 5554, Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, Université Montpellier 2, CC64, Place E. Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier, France. galtier@univ-montp2.fr
Vincent Daubin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incongruence between gene trees is the main challenge faced by phylogeneticists in the genomic era. Incongruence can occur for artefactual reasons, when we fail to recover the correct gene trees, or for biological reasons, when true gene trees are actually distinct from each other, and from the species tree. Horizontal gene transfers (HGTs) between genomes are an important process of bacterial evolution resulting in a substantial amount of phylogenetic conflicts between gene trees. We argue that the (bacterial) species tree is still a meaningful scientific concept even in the case of HGTs, and that reconstructing it is still a valid goal. We tentatively assess the amount of phylogenetic incongruence caused by HGTs in bacteria by comparing bacterial datasets to a metazoan dataset in which transfers are presumably very scarce or absent.We review existing phylogenomic methods and their ability to return to the user, both the vertical (speciation/extinction history) and horizontal (gene transfers) phylogenetic signals.

Indexed as

PhylogenyResearch DesignBacteriaDatabases, GeneticGene Transfer, HorizontalGenomics

Identifiers

PMID18852109
PMCPMC2607408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.