ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2018
The Effect of Nonreversibility on Inferring Rooted Phylogenies.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogenomic Testing of Root Hypotheses.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Assessing Confidence in Root Placement on Phylogenies: An Empirical Study Using Nonreversible Models for Mammals.Systematic biology · 2022Article
- Phylogenomics provides robust support for a two-domains tree of life.Nature ecology & evolution · 2020Article
- From pairs of most similar sequences to phylogenetic best matches.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2020Article
- Genomic diversity, lifestyles and evolutionary origins of DPANN archaea.FEMS microbiology letters · 2019Review
- New substitution models for rooting phylogenetic trees.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most phylogenetic models assume that the evolutionary process is stationary and reversible. In addition to being biologically improbable, these assumptions also impair inference by generating models under which the likelihood does not depend on the position of the root. Consequently, the root of the tree cannot be inferred as part of the analysis. Yet identifying the root position is a key component of phylogenetic inference because it provides a point of reference for polarizing ancestor-descendant relationships and therefore interpreting the tree. In this paper, we investigate the effect of relaxing the unrealistic reversibility assumption and allowing the position of the root to be another unknown. We propose two hierarchical models that are centered on a reversible model but perturbed to allow nonreversibility. The models differ in the degree of structure imposed on the perturbations. The analysis is performed in the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for which software is provided. We illustrate the performance of the two nonreversible models in analyses of simulated data using two types of topological priors. We then apply the models to a real biological data set, the radiation of polyploid yeasts, for which there is robust biological opinion about the root position. Finally, we apply the models to a second biological alignment for which the rooted tree is controversial: the ribosomal tree of life. We compare the two nonreversible models and conclude that both are useful in inferring the position of the root from real biological data.
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.