Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37881861›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2024

Reference Genome Choice and Filtering Thresholds Jointly Influence Phylogenomic Analyses.

Jessica A Rick, Chad D Brock, Alexander L Lewanski, Jimena Golcher-Benavides, Catherine E Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Approaches to Studying Viral Pangenome Variation Graphs.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Accurate, scalable, and fully automated inference of species trees from raw genome assemblies using ROADIES.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Jessica A RickSchool of Natural Resources & the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8927-220X
Chad D BrockDepartment of Biological Sciences, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX 76401, USA.
Alexander L LewanskiDepartment of Integrative Biology and W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5843-0837
Jimena Golcher-BenavidesDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9094-6868
Catherine E WagnerProgram in Ecology and Evolution, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8585-6120

Funding

Wyoming INBRE Phase 4- Equipment Supplement for x-ray diffractometer for Center for Advanced Scientific InstrumentationP20GM103432 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING · PI Nicolas A. Blouin · 2012 to 2026
$56.8M
National Science Foundation DEB-1556963NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular phylogenies are a cornerstone of modern comparative biology and are commonly employed to investigate a range of biological phenomena, such as diversification rates, patterns in trait evolution, biogeography, and community assembly. Recent work has demonstrated that significant biases may be introduced into downstream phylogenetic analyses from processing genomic data; however, it remains unclear whether there are interactions among bioinformatic parameters or biases introduced through the choice of reference genome for sequence alignment and variant calling. We address these knowledge gaps by employing a combination of simulated and empirical data sets to investigate the extent to which the choice of reference genome in upstream bioinformatic processing of genomic data influences phylogenetic inference, as well as the way that reference genome choice interacts with bioinformatic filtering choices and phylogenetic inference method. We demonstrate that more stringent minor allele filters bias inferred trees away from the true species tree topology, and that these biased trees tend to be more imbalanced and have a higher center of gravity than the true trees. We find the greatest topological accuracy when filtering sites for minor allele count (MAC) >3-4 in our 51-taxa data sets, while tree center of gravity was closest to the true value when filtering for sites with MAC >1-2. In contrast, filtering for missing data increased accuracy in the inferred topologies; however, this effect was small in comparison to the effect of minor allele filters and may be undesirable due to a subsequent mutation spectrum distortion. The bias introduced by these filters differs based on the reference genome used in short read alignment, providing further support that choosing a reference genome for alignment is an important bioinformatic decision with implications for downstream analyses. These results demonstrate that attributes of the study system and dataset (and their interaction) add important nuance for how best to assemble and filter short-read genomic data for phylogenetic inference.

Indexed as

ClassificationGenomePhylogenyComputational BiologyGenomicsBioinformaticsdiversification rateimbalancemacroevolutionminor allele frequencyphylogenomics

Identifiers

PMID37881861
PMCPMC13396950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.