Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33316067›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2021

Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Data Is Difficult.

Benoit Morel, Pierre Barbera, Lucas Czech, Ben Bettisworth, Lukas Hübner, Sarah Lutteropp, Dora Serdari, Evangelia-Georgia Kostaki, Ioannis Mamais, Alexey M Kozlov and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing 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

106 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Biological causes and impacts of rugged tree landscapes in phylodynamic inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Tracing SARS-CoV-2 clusters across local scales using genomic data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Benoit MorelComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pierre BarberaComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lucas CzechDepartment of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1340-9644
Ben BettisworthComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lukas HübnerComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sarah LutteroppComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dora SerdariComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Evangelia-Georgia KostakiDepartment of Hygiene Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ioannis MamaisDepartment of Health Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Alexey M KozlovComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pavlos PavlidisInstitute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Crete, Greece.
Dimitrios ParaskevisDepartment of Hygiene Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Alexandros StamatakisComputational Molecular Evolution Group, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0353-0691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies covering some aspects of SARS-CoV-2 data analyses are being published on a daily basis, including a regularly updated phylogeny on nextstrain.org. Here, we review the difficulties of inferring reliable phylogenies by example of a data snapshot comprising a quality-filtered subset of 8,736 out of all 16,453 virus sequences available on May 5, 2020 from gisaid.org. We find that it is difficult to infer a reliable phylogeny on these data due to the large number of sequences in conjunction with the low number of mutations. We further find that rooting the inferred phylogeny with some degree of confidence either via the bat and pangolin outgroups or by applying novel computational methods on the ingroup phylogeny does not appear to be credible. Finally, an automatic classification of the current sequences into subclasses using the mPTP tool for molecular species delimitation is also, as might be expected, not possible, as the sequences are too closely related. We conclude that, although the application of phylogenetic methods to disentangle the evolution and spread of COVID-19 provides some insight, results of phylogenetic analyses, in particular those conducted under the default settings of current phylogenetic inference tools, as well as downstream analyses on the inferred phylogenies, should be considered and interpreted with extreme caution.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenome, ViralMutationPhylogenyCOVID-19HumansSARS-CoV-2outgroupsphylogenetic inferencephylogeny rootingSARS-CoV-2strain classification

Identifiers

PMID33316067
PMCPMC7798910

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.