ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2020
Caterpillars on three and four leaves are sufficient to reconstruct binary normal networks.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2020. 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.
- Simplifying and Characterizing DAGs and Phylogenetic Networks via Least Common Ancestor Constraints.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- Clustering systems of phylogenetic networks.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2023Article
- Classes of explicit phylogenetic networks and their biological and mathematical significance.Journal of mathematical biology · 2022Review
- Merging Arcs to Produce Acyclic Phylogenetic Networks and Normal Networks.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2022Article
- Trinets encode orchard phylogenetic networks.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While every rooted binary phylogenetic tree is determined by its set of displayed rooted triples, such a result does not hold for an arbitrary rooted binary phylogenetic network. In particular, there exist two non-isomorphic rooted binary temporal normal networks that display the same set of rooted triples. Moreover, without any structural constraint on the rooted phylogenetic networks under consideration, similarly negative results have also been established for binets and trinets which are rooted subnetworks on two and three leaves, respectively. Hence, in general, piecing together a rooted phylogenetic network from such a set of small building blocks appears insurmountable. In contrast to these results, in this paper, we show that a rooted binary normal network is determined by its sets of displayed caterpillars (particular type of subtrees) on three and four leaves. The proof is constructive and realises a polynomial-time algorithm that takes the sets of caterpillars on three and four leaves displayed by a rooted binary normal network and, up to isomorphism, reconstructs this network.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32909104What 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.