Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32492139›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2020

PIQMEE: Bayesian Phylodynamic Method for Analysis of Large Data Sets with Duplicate Sequences.

Veronika Boskova, Tanja Stadler

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Veronika BoskovaDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zürich, Basel, Switzerland.
Tanja StadlerDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zürich, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing of pathogen quasispecies within a host yields data sets of tens to hundreds of unique sequences. However, the full data set often contains thousands of sequences, because many of those unique sequences have multiple identical copies. Data sets of this size represent a computational challenge for currently available Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic methods. Through simulations, we explore how large data sets with duplicate sequences affect the speed and accuracy of phylogenetic and phylodynamic analysis within BEAST 2. We show that using unique sequences only leads to biases, and using a random subset of sequences yields imprecise parameter estimates. To overcome these shortcomings, we introduce PIQMEE, a BEAST 2 add-on that produces reliable parameter estimates from full data sets with increased computational efficiency as compared with the currently available methods within BEAST 2. The principle behind PIQMEE is to resolve the tree structure of the unique sequences only, while simultaneously estimating the branching times of the duplicate sequences. Distinguishing between unique and duplicate sequences allows our method to perform well even for very large data sets. Although the classic method converges poorly for data sets of 6,000 sequences when allowed to run for 7 days, our method converges in slightly more than 1 day. In fact, PIQMEE can handle data sets of around 21,000 sequences with 20 unique sequences in 14 days. Finally, we apply the method to a real, within-host HIV sequencing data set with several thousand sequences per patient.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremGenetic TechniquesModels, GeneticPhylogenySoftwareDatasets as TopicBayesian phylodynamicsBEAST 2duplicate sequencesfast algorithmslarge data setssubsampling

Identifiers

PMID32492139
PMCPMC7530608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.