Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25540454›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2015

Cophylogeny reconstruction via an approximate Bayesian computation.

C Baudet, B Donati, B Sinaimeri, P Crescenzi, C Gautier, C Matias, M-F Sagot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Phylogenetic reconciliation.PLoS computational biology · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

C BaudetINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
B DonatiINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
B SinaimeriINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
P CrescenziINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
C GautierINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
C MatiasINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry.
M-F SagotINRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France; Université de Lyon, F-69000 Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France; Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, I-50134 Firenze, Italy; and Laboratoire Statistique et Génome, UMR CNRS 8071 & USC INRA, Université d'Évry marie-france.sagot@inria.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite an increasingly vast literature on cophylogenetic reconstructions for studying host-parasite associations, understanding the common evolutionary history of such systems remains a problem that is far from being solved. Most algorithms for host-parasite reconciliation use an event-based model, where the events include in general (a subset of) cospeciation, duplication, loss, and host switch. All known parsimonious event-based methods then assign a cost to each type of event in order to find a reconstruction of minimum cost. The main problem with this approach is that the cost of the events strongly influences the reconciliation obtained. Some earlier approaches attempt to avoid this problem by finding a Pareto set of solutions and hence by considering event costs under some minimization constraints. To deal with this problem, we developed an algorithm, called Coala, for estimating the frequency of the events based on an approximate Bayesian computation approach. The benefits of this method are 2-fold: (i) it provides more confidence in the set of costs to be used in a reconciliation, and (ii) it allows estimation of the frequency of the events in cases where the data set consists of trees with a large number of taxa. We evaluate our method on simulated and on biological data sets. We show that in both cases, for the same pair of host and parasite trees, different sets of frequencies for the events lead to equally probable solutions. Moreover, often these solutions differ greatly in terms of the number of inferred events. It appears crucial to take this into account before attempting any further biological interpretation of such reconciliations. More generally, we also show that the set of frequencies can vary widely depending on the input host and parasite trees. Indiscriminately applying a standard vector of costs may thus not be a good strategy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPhylogenyAnimalsArthropodsBayes TheoremClassificationHost-Parasite InteractionsWolbachiaapproximate Bayesian computationcophylogenyhost/parasite systemslikelihood-free inference

Identifiers

PMID25540454
PMCPMC4395844

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.