Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887041›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2015

Automatic selection of partitioning schemes for phylogenetic analyses using iterative k-means clustering of site rates.

Paul B Frandsen, Brett Calcott, Christoph Mayer, Robert Lanfear

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. First Report ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. New Species ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Eleven New Species of the GenusJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  9. Five New Species ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. New Ascomycetes from the Mexican Tropical Montane Cloud Forest.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. MycoKeys · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Three new species ofMycoKeys · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Evolutionary history of Polyneoptera and its implications for our understanding of early winged insects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Paul B FrandsenOffice of Research Information Services, Office of the CIO, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. paulbfrandsen@gmail.com.
Brett CalcottSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. brett.calcott@gmail.com.
Christoph MayerZoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK)/Zentrum für Molekulare Biodiversitätsforschung (ZMB), Bonn, Germany. c.mayer.zfmk@uni-bonn.de.
Robert LanfearEcology Evolution and Genetics, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. robert.lanfear@mq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModel selection is a vital part of most phylogenetic analyses, and accounting for the heterogeneity in evolutionary patterns across sites is particularly important. Mixture models and partitioning are commonly used to account for this variation, and partitioning is the most popular approach. Most current partitioning methods require some a priori partitioning scheme to be defined, typically guided by known structural features of the sequences, such as gene boundaries or codon positions. Recent evidence suggests that these a priori boundaries often fail to adequately account for variation in rates and patterns of evolution among sites. Furthermore, new phylogenomic datasets such as those assembled from ultra-conserved elements lack obvious structural features on which to define a priori partitioning schemes. The upshot is that, for many phylogenetic datasets, partitioned models of molecular evolution may be inadequate, thus limiting the accuracy of downstream phylogenetic analyses.

resultsWe present a new algorithm that automatically selects a partitioning scheme via the iterative division of the alignment into subsets of similar sites based on their rates of evolution. We compare this method to existing approaches using a wide range of empirical datasets, and show that it consistently leads to large increases in the fit of partitioned models of molecular evolution when measured using AICc and BIC scores. In doing so, we demonstrate that some related approaches to solving this problem may have been associated with a small but important bias.

conclusionsOur method provides an alternative to traditional approaches to partitioning, such as dividing alignments by gene and codon position. Because our method is data-driven, it can be used to estimate partitioned models for all types of alignments, including those that are not amenable to traditional approaches to partitioning.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEvolution, MolecularModels, GeneticPhylogenyCluster AnalysisCodonCodon

Identifiers

PMID25887041
PMCPMC4327964

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.