Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23667537›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

The impact of paralogy on phylogenomic studies - a case study on annelid relationships.

Torsten H Struck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Phylogenomic Analyses ofmSystems · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rooting the tree of life: the phylogenetic jury is still out.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Torsten H StruckZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany. torsten.struck.zfmk@uni-bonn.de
Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phylogenomic studies based on hundreds of genes derived from expressed sequence tags libraries are increasingly used to reveal the phylogeny of taxa. A prerequisite for these studies is the assignment of genes into clusters of orthologous sequences. Sophisticated methods of orthology prediction are used in such analyses, but it is rarely assessed whether paralogous sequences have been erroneously grouped together as orthologous sequences after the prediction, and whether this had an impact on the phylogenetic reconstruction using a super-matrix approach. Herein, I tested the impact of paralogous sequences on the reconstruction of annelid relationships based on phylogenomic datasets. Using single-partition analyses, screening for bootstrap support, blast searches and pruning of sequences in the supermatrix, wrongly assigned paralogous sequences were found in eight partitions and the placement of five taxa (the annelids Owenia, Scoloplos, Sthenelais and Eurythoe and the nemertean Cerebratulus) including the robust bootstrap support could be attributed to the presence of paralogous sequences in two partitions. Excluding these sequences resulted in a different, weaker supported placement for these taxa. Moreover, the analyses revealed that paralogous sequences impacted the reconstruction when only a single taxon represented a previously supported higher taxon such as a polychaete family. One possibility of a priori detection of wrongly assigned paralogous sequences could combine 1) a screening of single-partition analyses based on criteria such as nodal support or internal branch length with 2) blast searches of suspicious cases as presented herein. Also possible are a posteriori approaches in which support for specific clades is investigated by comparing alternative hypotheses based on differences in per-site likelihoods. Increasing the sizes of EST libraries will also decrease the likelihood of wrongly assigned paralogous sequences, and in the case of orthology prediction methods like HaMStR it is likewise decreased by using more than one reference taxon.

Indexed as

GenomicsPhylogenySequence Homology, Nucleic AcidAnimalsAnnelidaLikelihood Functions

Identifiers

PMID23667537
PMCPMC3647064
OpenAlexW2061481328

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.