Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34734192›Full record

ArticleNature computational science2021

Fast and accurate bootstrap confidence limits on genome-scale phylogenies using little bootstraps.

Sudip Sharma, Sudhir Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature computational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Completing a molecular timetree of Afrotheria.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Completing a molecular timetree of primates.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Incongruence in the phylogenomics era.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Recent progress on methods for estimating and updating large phylogenies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  15. Embracing Green Computing in Molecular Phylogenetics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Sudip SharmaInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Sudhir KumarInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

Methods For Evolutionary Genomics AnalysisR35GM139540 · NIGMS · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI Sudhir Kumar · 2021 to 2026
$2.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM139540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Felsenstein's bootstrap approach is widely used to assess confidence in species relationships inferred from multiple sequence alignments. It resamples sites randomly with replacement to build alignment replicates of the same size as the original alignment and infers a phylogeny from each replicate dataset. The proportion of phylogenies recovering the same grouping of species is its bootstrap confidence limit. But, standard bootstrap imposes a high computational burden in applications involving long sequence alignments. Here, we introduce the bag of little bootstraps approach to phylogenetics, bootstrapping only a few little samples, each containing a small subset of sites. We report that the median bagging of bootstrap confidence limits from little samples produces confidence in inferred species relationships similar to standard bootstrap but in a fraction of computational time and memory. Therefore, the little bootstraps approach can potentially enhance the rigor, efficiency, and parallelization of big data phylogenomic analyses.

Identifiers

PMID34734192
PMCPMC8560003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.