Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35939516›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Insertions and deletions as phylogenetic signal in an alignment-free context.

Niklas Birth, Thomas Dencker, Burkhard Morgenstern

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Niklas BirthDepartment of Bioinformatics, Institute of Microbiology and Genetics, Universisät Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6946-5613
Thomas DenckerDepartment of Bioinformatics, Institute of Microbiology and Genetics, Universisät Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Burkhard MorgensternDepartment of Bioinformatics, Institute of Microbiology and Genetics, Universisät Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7431-2862
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most methods for phylogenetic tree reconstruction are based on sequence alignments; they infer phylogenies from substitutions that may have occurred at the aligned sequence positions. Gaps in alignments are usually not employed as phylogenetic signal. In this paper, we explore an alignment-free approach that uses insertions and deletions (indels) as an additional source of information for phylogeny inference. For a set of four or more input sequences, we generate so-called quartet blocks of four putative homologous segments each. For pairs of such quartet blocks involving the same four sequences, we compare the distances between the two blocks in these sequences, to obtain hints about indels that may have happened between the blocks since the respective four sequences have evolved from their last common ancestor. A prototype implementation that we call Gap-SpaM is presented to infer phylogenetic trees from these data, using a quartet-tree approach or, alternatively, under the maximum-parsimony paradigm. This approach should not be regarded as an alternative to established methods, but rather as a complementary source of phylogenetic information. Interestingly, however, our software is able to produce phylogenetic trees from putative indels alone that are comparable to trees obtained with existing alignment-free methods.

Indexed as

INDEL MutationSoftwareAlgorithmsPhylogenySequence Alignment

Identifiers

PMID35939516
PMCPMC9387925
OpenAlexW4290667473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.