Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32413061›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessing the accuracy of phylogenetic rooting methods on prokaryotic gene families.

Taylor Wade, L Thiberio Rangel, Soumya Kundu, Gregory P Fournier, Mukul S Bansal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. virDTL: Viral Recombination Analysis Through Phylogenetic Reconciliation and Its Application to Sarbecoviruses and SARS-CoV-2.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Beyond Sea Turtles:Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Taylor WadeDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States of America.
L Thiberio RangelDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Soumya KunduDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States of America.
Gregory P FournierDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Mukul S BansalDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0039-2596
University of Connecticut · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Almost all standard phylogenetic methods for reconstructing gene trees result in unrooted trees; yet, many of the most useful applications of gene trees require that the gene trees be correctly rooted. As a result, several computational methods have been developed for inferring the root of unrooted gene trees. However, the accuracy of such methods has never been systematically evaluated on prokaryotic gene families, where horizontal gene transfer is often one of the dominant evolutionary events driving gene family evolution. In this work, we address this gap by conducting a thorough comparative evaluation of five different rooting methods using large collections of both simulated and empirical prokaryotic gene trees. Our simulation study is based on 6000 true and reconstructed gene trees on 100 species and characterizes the rooting accuracy of the four methods under 36 different evolutionary conditions and 3 levels of gene tree reconstruction error. The empirical study is based on a large, carefully designed data set of 3098 gene trees from 504 bacterial species (406 Alphaproteobacteria and 98 Cyanobacteria) and reveals insights that supplement those gleaned from the simulation study. Overall, this work provides several valuable insights into the accuracy of the considered methods that will help inform the choice of rooting methods to use when studying microbial gene family evolution. Among other findings, this study identifies parsimonious Duplication-Transfer-Loss (DTL) rooting and Minimal Ancestor Deviation (MAD) rooting as two of the most accurate gene tree rooting methods for prokaryotes and specifies the evolutionary conditions under which these methods are most accurate, demonstrates that DTL rooting is highly sensitive to high evolutionary rates and gene tree error, and that rooting methods based on branch-lengths are generally robust to gene tree reconstruction error.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiological EvolutionComputational BiologyEvolution, MolecularGene Transfer, HorizontalModels, GeneticPhylogenyProkaryotic Cells

Identifiers

PMID32413061
PMCPMC7228096
OpenAlexW3024644380

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.