Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28762018›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2017

Uprooted Phylogenetic Networks.

P Gambette, K T Huber, G E Scholz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin 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

3 authors.

P GambetteLIGM (UMR 8049), UPEM, CNRS, ESIEE, ENPC, Université Paris-Est, 77454, Marne-la-Vallée, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7062-0262
K T HuberSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. k.huber@uea.ac.uk.
G E ScholzSchool of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for structures capable of accommodating complex evolutionary signals such as those found in, for example, wheat has fueled research into phylogenetic networks. Such structures generalize the standard model of a phylogenetic tree by also allowing for cycles and have been introduced in rooted and unrooted form. In contrast to phylogenetic trees or their unrooted versions, rooted phylogenetic networks are notoriously difficult to understand. To help alleviate this, recent work on them has also centered on their "uprooted" versions. By focusing on such graphs and the combinatorial concept of a split system which underpins an unrooted phylogenetic network, we show that not only can a so-called (uprooted) 1-nested network N be obtained from the Buneman graph (sometimes also called a median network) associated with the split system [Formula: see text] induced on the set of leaves of N but also that that graph is, in a well-defined sense, optimal. Along the way, we establish the 1-nested analogue of the fundamental "splits equivalence theorem" for phylogenetic trees and characterize maximal circular split systems.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticPhylogenyAlgorithmsBiological EvolutionMathematical ConceptsTriticumBuneman graphCircular split systemClosureMedian networkPC-treesPhylogenetic network

Identifiers

PMID28762018
PMCPMC5552900

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.