Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29931521›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2018

Phylogenetics beyond biology.

Nancy Retzlaff, Peter F Stadler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2018. 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. From pairs of most similar sequences to phylogenetic best matches.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2020
    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

2 authors.

Nancy RetzlaffMax-Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Inselstraße 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Peter F StadlerMax-Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Inselstraße 22, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. peter.stadler@bioinf.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5016-5191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolutionary processes have been described not only in biology but also for a wide range of human cultural activities including languages and law. In contrast to the evolution of DNA or protein sequences, the detailed mechanisms giving rise to the observed evolution-like processes are not or only partially known. The absence of a mechanistic model of evolution implies that it remains unknown how the distances between different taxa have to be quantified. Considering distortions of metric distances, we first show that poor choices of the distance measure can lead to incorrect phylogenetic trees. Based on the well-known fact that phylogenetic inference requires additive metrics, we then show that the correct phylogeny can be computed from a distance matrix [Formula: see text] if there is a monotonic, subadditive function [Formula: see text] such that [Formula: see text] is additive. The required metric-preserving transformation [Formula: see text] can be computed as the solution of an optimization problem. This result shows that the problem of phylogeny reconstruction is well defined even if a detailed mechanistic model of the evolutionary process remains elusive.

Indexed as

BiologyPhylogenyAlgorithmsAnimalsBiological EvolutionDNAHumansModels, BiologicalMolecular StructureProteinsRNADNAProteinsRNAAdditive metricCultural evolutionMetric-preserving functionsPhylogenetic tree

Identifiers

PMID29931521
PMCPMC6208858

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.