Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31667118›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2019

Supergene validation: A model-based protocol for assessing the accuracy of non-model-based supergene methods.

Richard H Adams, Todd A Castoe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Richard H AdamsDepartment of Biology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019, USA.
Todd A CastoeDepartment of Biology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-scale species tree inference is largely restricted to heuristic approaches that use estimated gene trees to reconstruct species-level relationships. Central to these heuristic species tree methods is the assumption that the gene trees are estimated without error. To increase the accuracy of input gene trees used to infer species trees, several techniques have recently been developed for constructing longer "supergenes" that represent sets of loci inferred to share the same genealogical history. While these supergene methods are designed to increase the amount of data for gene tree estimation by concatenating several loci into "supergenes" to increase gene tree accuracy, no formal protocols have been proposed to validate this key "supergene" concatenation step. In a recent study, we developed several supergene validation strategies for assessing the accuracy of a popular supergene method: the so-called "statistical binning" pipeline. In this article, we describe a more generalizable and model-based "supergene validation" protocol for assessing the accuracy of supergenes and supergene methods using model-based tests of phylogenetic congruency. •Supergenes are validated by adopting model-based tests of topological congruence•These model-based procedures out preform non-model based methods for supergene construction•The results of this protocol can be used to assess the overall performance of a supergene method across a phylogenomic dataset.

Indexed as

BioinformaticsCoalescentConcatenationPhylogenetic inferencePhylogenomicsSpecies treesSupergeneSupergene validation protocol

Identifiers

PMID31667118
PMCPMC6812401

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.