ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2024
PhyloBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Phylogenetic Programs.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 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.
- Phylogenetic inference under the balanced minimum evolution criterion via semidefinite programming.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Treeline Provides a Unified Strategy for Optimising Phylogenetic Trees Under Alternative Criteria.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Protein Language Models: Applications and Perspectives.Journal of proteome research · 2026Review
- Performance assessment of phylogenetic inference tools using PhyloSmew.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phylogenetic inference based on protein sequence alignment is a widely used procedure. Numerous phylogenetic algorithms have been developed, most of which have many parameters and options. Choosing a program, options, and parameters can be a nontrivial task. No benchmark for comparison of phylogenetic programs on real protein sequences was publicly available. We have developed PhyloBench, a benchmark for evaluating the quality of phylogenetic inference, and used it to test a number of popular phylogenetic programs. PhyloBench is based on natural, not simulated, protein sequences of orthologous evolutionary domains. The measure of accuracy of an inferred tree is its distance to the corresponding species tree. A number of tree-to-tree distance measures were tested. The most reliable results were obtained using the Robinson-Foulds distance. Our results confirmed recent findings that distance methods are more accurate than maximum likelihood (ML) and maximum parsimony. We tested the bayesian program MrBayes on natural protein sequences and found that, on our datasets, it performs better than ML, but worse than distance methods. Of the methods we tested, the Balanced Minimum Evolution method implemented in FastME yielded the best results on our material. Alignments and reference species trees are available at https://mouse.belozersky.msu.ru/tools/phylobench/ together with a web-interface that allows for a semi-automatic comparison of a user's method with a number of popular programs.
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.