Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21362638›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2011

Detecting phylogenetic breakpoints and discordance from genome-wide alignments for species tree reconstruction.

Cécile Ané

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Statistics and truth in phylogenomics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2012
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

1 author.

Cécile AnéDepartments of Statistics and Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. ane@stat.wisc.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the easy acquisition of sequence data, it is now possible to obtain and align whole genomes across multiple related species or populations. In this work, I assess the performance of a statistical method to reconstruct the whole distribution of phylogenetic trees along the genome, estimate the proportion of the genome for which a given clade is true, and infer a concordance tree that summarizes the dominant vertical inheritance pattern. There are two main issues when dealing with whole-genome alignments, as opposed to multiple genes: the size of the data and the detection of recombination breakpoints. These breakpoints partition the genomic alignment into phylogenetically homogeneous loci, where sites within a given locus all share the same phylogenetic tree topology. To delimitate these loci, I describe here a method based on the minimum description length (MDL) principle, implemented with dynamic programming for computational efficiency. Simulations show that combining MDL partitioning with Bayesian concordance analysis provides an efficient and robust way to estimate both the vertical inheritance signal and the horizontal phylogenetic signal. The method performed well both in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting and in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. A high level of systematic bias was found here, highlighting the need for good individual tree building methods, which form the basis for more elaborate gene tree/species tree reconciliation methods.

Indexed as

Chromosome BreakpointsPhylogenyAnimalsBayes TheoremComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDatabases, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGenetic Association StudiesGene Transfer, HorizontalHumansModels, GeneticRecombination, GeneticSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID21362638
PMCPMC3070431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.