Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33739420›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2021

Phylogenetic Permulations: A Statistically Rigorous Approach to Measure Confidence in Associations in a Phylogenetic Context.

Elysia Saputra, Amanda Kowalczyk, Luisa Cusick, Nathan Clark, Maria Chikina

Abstract readEvaluation Study
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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The genetic foundations of convergent traits.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Parallel Selection for Longevity in Mammals and Birds.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Language models reveal a complex sequence basis for adaptive convergent evolution of protein functions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Elysia SaputraJoint Carnegie Mellon University - University of Pittsburgh PhD Program in Computational Biology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2572-393X
Amanda KowalczykJoint Carnegie Mellon University - University of Pittsburgh PhD Program in Computational Biology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Luisa CusickDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Nathan ClarkDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Maria ChikinaDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

Integrated Interdisciplinary, inter-university PhD Program Computational Biology (T32)T32EB009403 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BAHAR, IVET, BAR-JOSEPH, ZIV · 2009 to 2023
$4.4M
Title: Functional Annotation of Genomes via Phenotypic Convergence within Large Multi-species AlignmentsR01HG009299 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Maria D Chikina, Nathaniel L Clark · 2017 to 2026
$4.1M
Discovery and characterization of ocular regulatory elements through evolutionary analysisR01EY030546 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI CHIKINA, MARIA D, CLARK, NATHANIEL L · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY030546NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009299NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many evolutionary comparative methods seek to identify associations between phenotypic traits or between traits and genotypes, often with the goal of inferring potential functional relationships between them. Comparative genomics methods aimed at this goal measure the association between evolutionary changes at the genetic level with traits evolving convergently across phylogenetic lineages. However, these methods have complex statistical behaviors that are influenced by nontrivial and oftentimes unknown confounding factors. Consequently, using standard statistical analyses in interpreting the outputs of these methods leads to potentially inaccurate conclusions. Here, we introduce phylogenetic permulations, a novel statistical strategy that combines phylogenetic simulations and permutations to calculate accurate, unbiased P values from phylogenetic methods. Permulations construct the null expectation for P values from a given phylogenetic method by empirically generating null phenotypes. Subsequently, empirical P values that capture the true statistical confidence given the correlation structure in the data are directly calculated based on the empirical null expectation. We examine the performance of permulation methods by analyzing both binary and continuous phenotypes, including marine, subterranean, and long-lived large-bodied mammal phenotypes. Our results reveal that permulations improve the statistical power of phylogenetic analyses and correctly calibrate statements of confidence in rejecting complex null distributions while maintaining or improving the enrichment of known functions related to the phenotype. We also find that permulations refine pathway enrichment analyses by correcting for nonindependence in gene ranks. Our results demonstrate that permulations are a powerful tool for improving statistical confidence in the conclusions of phylogenetic analysis when the parametric null is unknown.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesPhenotypePhylogenyAnimalsHumanscomparative genomicsconvergent evolutionevolutionary rate convergencegenotype–phenotype associationphylogenetic generalized least squaresstatistical phylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID33739420
PMCPMC8233500

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.