ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2024
Ranked Subtree Prune and Regraft.
Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tree Rearrangement Graphs Admit Paths of Decreasing Robinson-Foulds Distance.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Article
- Biological causes and impacts of rugged tree landscapes in phylodynamic inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Spaces of ranked tree-child networks.Journal of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- The Number and Pattern of Viral Genomic Reassortments are not Necessarily Identifiable from Segment Trees.Molecular biology and evolution · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phylogenetic trees are a mathematical formalisation of evolutionary histories between organisms, species, genes, cancer cells, etc. For many applications, e.g. when analysing virus transmission trees or cancer evolution, (phylogenetic) time trees are of interest, where branch lengths represent times. Computational methods for reconstructing time trees from (typically molecular) sequence data, for example Bayesian phylogenetic inference using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, rely on algorithms that sample the treespace. They employ tree rearrangement operations such as [Formula: see text] (Subtree Prune and Regraft) and [Formula: see text] (Nearest Neighbour Interchange) or, in the case of time tree inference, versions of these that take times of internal nodes into account. While the classic [Formula: see text] tree rearrangement is well-studied, its variants for time trees are less understood, limiting comparative analysis for time tree methods. In this paper we consider a modification of the classical [Formula: see text] rearrangement on the space of ranked phylogenetic trees, which are trees equipped with a ranking of all internal nodes. This modification results in two novel treespaces, which we propose to study. We begin this study by discussing algorithmic properties of these treespaces, focusing on those relating to the complexity of computing distances under the ranked [Formula: see text] operations as well as similarities and differences to known tree rearrangement based treespaces. Surprisingly, we show the counterintuitive result that adding leaves to trees can actually decrease their ranked [Formula: see text] distance, which may have an impact on the results of time tree sampling algorithms given uncertain "rogue taxa".
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.