ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
On the inference of complex phylogenetic networks by Markov Chain Monte-Carlo.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- PhyloFusion-Fast and Easy Fusion of Rooted Phylogenetic Trees into Rooted Phylogenetic Networks.Systematic biology · 2026Article
- Do syngameons exist in tropical trees? Challenges to determine their existence and estimate their frequency.Biology letters · 2025Review
- Incomplete lineage sorting and introgression among genera and species of Liliaceae tribe Tulipeae: insights from phylogenomics.BMC biology · 2025Article
- Leveraging graphical model techniques to study evolution on phylogenetic networks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- ANOMALOUS NETWORKS UNDER THE MULTISPECIES COALESCENT: THEORY AND PREVALENCE.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Recent progress on methods for estimating and updating large phylogenies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Treewidth-based algorithms for the small parsimony problem on networks.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2022Article
- Phylogenomic assessment of the role of hybridization and introgression in trait evolution.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- A roadmap of phylogenomic methods for studying polyploid plant genera.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For various species, high quality sequences and complete genomes are nowadays available for many individuals. This makes data analysis challenging, as methods need not only to be accurate, but also time efficient given the tremendous amount of data to process. In this article, we introduce an efficient method to infer the evolutionary history of individuals under the multispecies coalescent model in networks (MSNC). Phylogenetic networks are an extension of phylogenetic trees that can contain reticulate nodes, which allow to model complex biological events such as horizontal gene transfer, hybridization and introgression. We present a novel way to compute the likelihood of biallelic markers sampled along genomes whose evolution involved such events. This likelihood computation is at the heart of a Bayesian network inference method called SnappNet, as it extends the Snapp method inferring evolutionary trees under the multispecies coalescent model, to networks. SnappNet is available as a package of the well-known beast 2 software. Recently, the MCMC_BiMarkers method, implemented in PhyloNet, also extended Snapp to networks. Both methods take biallelic markers as input, rely on the same model of evolution and sample networks in a Bayesian framework, though using different methods for computing priors. However, SnappNet relies on algorithms that are exponentially more time-efficient on non-trivial networks. Using simulations, we compare performances of SnappNet and MCMC_BiMarkers. We show that both methods enjoy similar abilities to recover simple networks, but SnappNet is more accurate than MCMC_BiMarkers on more complex network scenarios. Also, on complex networks, SnappNet is found to be extremely faster than MCMC_BiMarkers in terms of time required for the likelihood computation. We finally illustrate SnappNet performances on a rice data set. SnappNet infers a scenario that is consistent with previous results and provides additional understanding of rice evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.