ArticleBioinformatics advances2023
SCAMPP+FastTree: improving scalability for likelihood-based phylogenetic placement.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- TIPP-SD: A new method for species detection in microbiomes.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- YamOmics: a comprehensive data resource on yam multi-omics.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Capturing sequence ambiguity among taxa in a primer-specific manner to improve taxonomic classification of amplicon sequencing.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Maximum likelihood inference of time-scaled cell lineage trees with mixed-type missing data using LAML.Genome biology · 2025Article
- TIPP3 and TIPP3-fast: Improved abundance profiling in metagenomics.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Genetic Diversity and Differentiation of Silkworm (Insects · 2024Article
- PyKleeBarcode: Enabling representation of the whole animal kingdom in information space.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Summary: Phylogenetic placement is the problem of placing 'query' sequences into an existing tree (called a 'backbone tree'). One of the most accurate phylogenetic placement methods to date is the maximum likelihood-based method pplacer, using RAxML to estimate numeric parameters on the backbone tree and then adding the given query sequence to the edge that maximizes the probability that the resulting tree generates the query sequence. Unfortunately, this way of running pplacer fails to return valid outputs on many moderately large backbone trees and so is limited to backbone trees with at most ∼10 000 leaves. SCAMPP is a technique to enable pplacer to run on larger backbone trees, which operates by finding a small 'placement subtree' specific to each query sequence, within which the query sequence are placed using pplacer. That approach matched the scalability and accuracy of APPLES-2, the previous most scalable method. Here, we explore a different aspect of pplacer's strategy: the technique used to estimate numeric parameters on the backbone tree. We confirm anecdotal evidence that using FastTree instead of RAxML to estimate numeric parameters on the backbone tree enables pplacer to scale to much larger backbone trees, almost (but not quite) matching the scalability of APPLES-2 and pplacer-SCAMPP. We then evaluate the combination of these two techniques-SCAMPP and the use of FastTree. We show that this combined approach, pplacer-SCAMPP-FastTree, has the same scalability as APPLES-2, improves on the scalability of pplacer-FastTree and achieves better accuracy than the comparably scalable methods. Availability and implementation: https://github.com/gillichu/PLUSplacer-taxtastic. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at
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.