ArticleBMC genomics2014
BBCA: Improving the scalability of *BEAST using random binning.
Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weighted ASTRID: fast and accurate species trees from weighted internode distances.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2023Article
- Phylogenomic branch length estimation using quartets.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Recent progress on methods for estimating and updating large phylogenies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Phylogenomic and morphological relationships among the botryllid ascidians (Subphylum Tunicata, Class Ascidiacea, Family Styelidae).Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- The perils of intralocus recombination for inferences of molecular convergence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
- IDXL: Species Tree Inference Using Internode Distance and Excess Gene Leaf Count.Journal of molecular evolution · 2017Article
- StarBEAST2 Brings Faster Species Tree Inference and Accurate Estimates of Substitution Rates.Molecular biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Mammal madness: is the mammal tree of life not yet resolved?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016Review
- ASTRAL-II: coalescent-based species tree estimation with many hundreds of taxa and thousands of genes.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2015Article
- Concatenation and Species Tree Methods Exhibit Statistically Indistinguishable Accuracy under a Range of Simulated Conditions.PLoS currents · 2015Article
- Phylogenomic species tree estimation in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting and horizontal gene transfer.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- A comparative study of SVDquartets and other coalescent-based species tree estimation methods.BMC genomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpecies tree estimation can be challenging in the presence of gene tree conflict due to incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), which can occur when the time between speciation events is short relative to the population size. Of the many methods that have been developed to estimate species trees in the presence of ILS, *BEAST, a Bayesian method that co-estimates the species tree and gene trees given sequence alignments on multiple loci, has generally been shown to have the best accuracy. However, *BEAST is extremely computationally intensive so that it cannot be used with large numbers of loci; hence, *BEAST is not suitable for genome-scale analyses.
resultsWe present BBCA (boosted binned coalescent-based analysis), a method that can be used with *BEAST (and other such co-estimation methods) to improve scalability. BBCA partitions the loci randomly into subsets, uses *BEAST on each subset to co-estimate the gene trees and species tree for the subset, and then combines the newly estimated gene trees together using MP-EST, a popular coalescent-based summary method. We compare time-restricted versions of BBCA and *BEAST on simulated datasets, and show that BBCA is at least as accurate as *BEAST, and achieves better convergence rates for large numbers of loci.
conclusionsPhylogenomic analysis using *BEAST is currently limited to datasets with a small number of loci, and analyses with even just 100 loci can be computationally challenging. BBCA uses a very simple divide-and-conquer approach that makes it possible to use *BEAST on datasets containing hundreds of loci. This study shows that BBCA provides excellent accuracy and is highly scalable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.