ArticleBiology2022
Distance-Based Phylogenetic Placement with Statistical Support.
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning Enables Alignment-Free Distance Calculation and Phylogenetic Placement Using k-Mer Frequencies.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Scaling DEPP phylogenetic placement to ultra-large reference trees: a tree-aware ensemble approach.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Phylogenetic identification of unknown sequences by placing them on a tree is routinely attempted in modern ecological studies. Such placements are often obtained from incomplete and noisy data, making it essential to augment the results with some notion of uncertainty. While the standard likelihood-based methods designed for placement naturally provide such measures of uncertainty, the newer and more scalable distance-based methods lack this crucial feature. Here, we adopt several parametric and nonparametric sampling methods for measuring the support of phylogenetic placements that have been obtained with the use of distances. Comparing the alternative strategies, we conclude that nonparametric bootstrapping is more accurate than the alternatives. We go on to show how bootstrapping can be performed efficiently using a linear algebraic formulation that makes it up to 30 times faster and implement this optimized version as part of the distance-based placement software APPLES. By examining a wide range of applications, we show that the relative accuracy of maximum likelihood (ML) support values as compared to distance-based methods depends on the application and the dataset. ML is advantageous for fragmentary queries, while distance-based support values are more accurate for full-length and multi-gene datasets. With the quantification of uncertainty, our work fills a crucial gap that prevents the broader adoption of distance-based placement tools.
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.