ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2016
Inferring gene duplications, transfers and losses can be done in a discrete framework.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Counting and sampling gene family evolutionary histories in the duplication-loss and duplication-loss-transfer models.Journal of mathematical biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the field of phylogenetics, the evolutionary history of a set of organisms is commonly depicted by a species tree-whose internal nodes represent speciation events-while the evolutionary history of a gene family is depicted by a gene tree-whose internal nodes can also represent macro-evolutionary events such as gene duplications and transfers. As speciation events are only part of the events shaping a gene history, the topology of a gene tree can show incongruences with that of the corresponding species tree. These incongruences can be used to infer the macro-evolutionary events undergone by the gene family. This is done by embedding the gene tree inside the species tree and hence providing a reconciliation of those trees. In the past decade, several parsimony-based methods have been developed to infer such reconciliations, accounting for gene duplications ([Formula: see text]), transfers ([Formula: see text]) and losses ([Formula: see text]). The main contribution of this paper is to formally prove an important assumption implicitly made by previous works on these reconciliations, namely that solving the (maximum) parsimony [Formula: see text] reconciliation problem in the discrete framework is equivalent to finding a most parsimonious [Formula: see text] scenario in the continuous framework. In the process, we also prove several intermediate results that are useful on their own and constitute a theoretical toolbox that will likely facilitate future theoretical contributions in the field.
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.