ArticleSystematic biology2019
Assessing Combinability of Phylogenomic Data Using Bayes Factors.
Article in Systematic biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Untangling the Evolution of the Receptor-Binding Motif of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of molecular evolution · 2024Article
- Characterizing conflict and congruence of molecular evolution across organellar genome sequences for phylogenetics in land plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Assessing Bayesian Phylogenetic Information Content of Morphological Data Using Knowledge From Anatomy Ontologies.Systematic biology · 2022Article
- Investigating Morphological Complexes Using Informational Dissonance and Bayes Factors: A Case Study in Corbiculate Bees.Systematic biology · 2021Article
- Supergene validation: A model-based protocol for assessing the accuracy of non-model-based supergene methods.MethodsX · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the rapid reduction in sequencing costs of high-throughput genomic data, it has become commonplace to use hundreds of genes to infer phylogeny of any study system. While sampling a large number of genes has given us a tremendous opportunity to uncover previously unknown relationships and improve phylogenetic resolution, it also presents us with new challenges when the phylogenetic signal is confused by differences in the evolutionary histories of sampled genes. Given the incorporation of accurate marginal likelihood estimation methods into popular Bayesian software programs, it is natural to consider using the Bayes Factor (BF) to compare different partition models in which genes within any given partition subset share both tree topology and edge lengths. We explore using marginal likelihood to assess data subset combinability when data subsets have varying levels of phylogenetic discordance due to deep coalescence events among genes (simulated within a species tree), and compare the results with our recently described phylogenetic informational dissonance index (D) estimated for each data set. BF effectively detects phylogenetic incongruence and provides a way to assess the statistical significance of D values. We use BFs to assess data combinability using an empirical data set comprising 56 plastid genes from the green algal order Volvocales. We also discuss the potential need for calibrating BFs and demonstrate that BFs used in this study are correctly calibrated.
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.