ArticleBMC research notes2024
18S rDNA sequence-structure phylogeny of the eukaryotes simultaneously inferred from sequences and their individual secondary structures.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThe eukaryotic tree of life has been subject of numerous studies ever since the nineteenth century, with more supergroups and their sister relations being decoded in the last years. In this study, we reconstructed the phylogeny of eukaryotes using complete 18S rDNA sequences and their individual secondary structures simultaneously. After the sequence-structure data was encoded, it was automatically aligned and analyzed using sequence-only as well as sequence-structure approaches. We present overall neighbor-joining trees of 211 eukaryotes as well as the respective profile neighbor-joining trees, which helped to resolve the basal branching pattern. A manually chosen subset was further inspected using neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony, and maximum likelihood analyses. Additionally, the 75 and 100 percent consensus structures of the subset were predicted.
resultsAll sequence-structure approaches show improvements compared to the respective sequence-only approaches: the average bootstrap support per node of the sequence-structure profile neighbor-joining analyses with 90.3, was higher than the average bootstrap support of the sequence-only profile neighbor-joining analysis with 73.9. Also, the subset analyses using sequence-structure data were better supported. Furthermore, more subgroups of the supergroups were recovered as monophyletic and sister group relations were much more comparable to results as obtained by multi-marker analyses.
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.