Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25332847›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

An evaluation of alternative methods for constructing phylogenies from whole genome sequence data: a case study with Salmonella.

James B Pettengill, Yan Luo, Steven Davis, Yi Chen, Narjol Gonzalez-Escalona, Andrea Ottesen, Hugh Rand, Marc W Allard, Errol Strain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Population Structure ofFrontiers in public health · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Microbial sequence typing in the genomic era.Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 2018
    Review
  8. Rise and fall of outbreak-specific clone inside endemic pulsotype ofEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Primer on Infectious Disease Bacterial Genomics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016
    Review
  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

9 authors.

James B PettengillCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Yan LuoCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Steven DavisCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Yi ChenCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Narjol Gonzalez-EscalonaCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Andrea OttesenCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Hugh RandCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Marc W AllardCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.
Errol StrainCenter for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food & Drug Administration , College Park, MD , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative genomics based on whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly being applied to investigate questions within evolutionary and molecular biology, as well as questions concerning public health (e.g., pathogen outbreaks). Given the impact that conclusions derived from such analyses may have, we have evaluated the robustness of clustering individuals based on WGS data to three key factors: (1) next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform (HiSeq, MiSeq, IonTorrent, 454, and SOLiD), (2) algorithms used to construct a SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) matrix (reference-based and reference-free), and (3) phylogenetic inference method (FastTreeMP, GARLI, and RAxML). We carried out these analyses on 194 whole genome sequences representing 107 unique Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica ser. Montevideo strains. Reference-based approaches for identifying SNPs produced trees that were significantly more similar to one another than those produced under the reference-free approach. Topologies inferred using a core matrix (i.e., no missing data) were significantly more discordant than those inferred using a non-core matrix that allows for some missing data. However, allowing for too much missing data likely results in a high false discovery rate of SNPs. When analyzing the same SNP matrix, we observed that the more thorough inference methods implemented in GARLI and RAxML produced more similar topologies than FastTreeMP. Our results also confirm that reproducibility varies among NGS platforms where the MiSeq had the lowest number of pairwise differences among replicate runs. Our investigation into the robustness of clustering patterns illustrates the importance of carefully considering how data from different platforms are combined and analyzed. We found clear differences in the topologies inferred, and certain methods performed significantly better than others for discriminating between the highly clonal organisms investigated here. The methods supported by our results represent a preliminary set of guidelines and a step towards developing validated standards for clustering based on whole genome sequence data.

Indexed as

CongruenceNext generation sequencingOutbreakPhylogeneticsSalmonellaSingle nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID25332847
PMCPMC4201946

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.