ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Tree shape-based approaches for the comparative study of cophylogeny.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative genomics of the primary endosymbiont Buchnera aphidicola in aphid hosts and their coevolutionary relationships.BMC biology · 2024Article
- Genome-Wide Reassortment Analysis of Influenza A H7N9 Viruses Circulating in China during 2013-2019.Viruses · 2022Article
- What lies behind the curtain: Cryptic diversity in helminth parasites of human and veterinary importance.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2022Review
- Network science inspires novel tree shape statistics.PloS one · 2021Article
- On the minimum value of the Colless index and the bifurcating trees that achieve it.Journal of mathematical biology · 2020Article
- On Sackin's original proposal: the variance of the leaves' depths as a phylogenetic balance index.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Phylogeny and Species Delimitation of ChineseFrontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Complex History of Codiversification and Host Switching of a Newfound Soricid-Borne Orthohantavirus in North America.Viruses · 2019Article
- Tree shape-based approaches for the comparative study of cophylogeny.Ecology and evolution · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cophylogeny is the congruence of phylogenetic relationships between two different groups of organisms due to their long-term interaction. We investigated the use of tree shape distance measures to quantify the degree of cophylogeny. We implemented a reverse-time simulation model of pathogen phylogenies within a fixed host tree, given cospeciation probability, host switching, and pathogen speciation rates. We used this model to evaluate 18 distance measures between host and pathogen trees including two kernel distances that we developed for labeled and unlabeled trees, which use branch lengths and accommodate different size trees. Finally, we used these measures to revisit published cophylogenetic studies, where authors described the observed associations as representing a high or low degree of cophylogeny. Our simulations demonstrated that some measures are more informative than others with respect to specific coevolution parameters especially when these did not assume extreme values. For real datasets, trees' associations projection revealed clustering of high concordance studies suggesting that investigators are describing it in a consistent way. Our results support the hypothesis that measures can be useful for quantifying cophylogeny. This motivates their usage in the field of coevolution and supports the development of simulation-based methods, i.e., approximate Bayesian computation, to estimate the underlying coevolutionary parameters.
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.