Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27221239›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2017

On the fixed parameter tractability of agreement-based phylogenetic distances.

Magnus Bordewich, Celine Scornavacca, Nihan Tokac, Mathias Weller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Magnus BordewichSchool of Engineering and Computing Sciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Celine ScornavaccaInstitut des Sciences de l'Evolution, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, EPHE, Place E. Bataillon CC, 064-34095, Montpellier Cedex 5, France. celine.scornavacca@umontpellier.fr.
Nihan TokacSchool of Engineering and Computing Sciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Mathias WellerInstitut de Biologie Computationnelle (IBC), Laboratory of Informatics, Robotics, and Microelectronics of Montpellier (LIRMM), Université de Montpellier, 161 rue Ada, 34392, Montpellier Cedex 5, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three important and related measures for summarizing the dissimilarity in phylogenetic trees are the minimum number of hybridization events required to fit two phylogenetic trees onto a single phylogenetic network (the hybridization number), the (rooted) subtree prune and regraft distance (the rSPR distance) and the tree bisection and reconnection distance (the TBR distance) between two phylogenetic trees. The respective problems of computing these measures are known to be NP-hard, but also fixed-parameter tractable in their respective natural parameters. This means that, while they are hard to compute in general, for cases in which a parameter (here the hybridization number and rSPR/TBR distance, respectively) is small, the problem can be solved efficiently even for large input trees. Here, we present new analyses showing that the use of the "cluster reduction" rule-already defined for the hybridization number and the rSPR distance and introduced here for the TBR distance-can transform any [Formula: see text]-time algorithm for any of these problems into an [Formula: see text]-time one, where n is the number of leaves of the phylogenetic trees, p is the natural parameter and k is a much stronger (that is, smaller) parameter: the minimum level of a phylogenetic network displaying both trees.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticPhylogenyAlgorithmsClassificationHybridization, GeneticCluster reductionHybridization numberPhylogenetic networkSPR distanceTBR distance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.