ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2023
Likelihood-Based Tests of Species Tree Hypotheses.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mass development of a filamentous and likely nitrophilous aerophytic green alga on tree bark:Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Genome-wide identification and mining elite allele variation of the Monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) gene family in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).BMC plant biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Likelihood-based tests of phylogenetic trees are a foundation of modern systematics. Over the past decade, an enormous wealth and diversity of model-based approaches have been developed for phylogenetic inference of both gene trees and species trees. However, while many techniques exist for conducting formal likelihood-based tests of gene trees, such frameworks are comparatively underdeveloped and underutilized for testing species tree hypotheses. To date, widely used tests of tree topology are designed to assess the fit of classical models of molecular sequence data and individual gene trees and thus are not readily applicable to the problem of species tree inference. To address this issue, we derive several analogous likelihood-based approaches for testing topologies using modern species tree models and heuristic algorithms that use gene tree topologies as input for maximum likelihood estimation under the multispecies coalescent. For the purpose of comparing support for species trees, these tests leverage the statistical procedures of their original gene tree-based counterparts that have an extended history for testing phylogenetic hypotheses at a single locus. We discuss and demonstrate a number of applications, limitations, and important considerations of these tests using simulated and empirical phylogenomic data sets that include both bifurcating topologies and reticulate network models of species relationships. Finally, we introduce the open-source R package SpeciesTopoTestR (SpeciesTopology Tests in R) that includes a suite of functions for conducting formal likelihood-based tests of species topologies given a set of input gene tree topologies.
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.