ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2024
The Bayesian Phylogenetic Bootstrap and its Application to Short Trees and Branches.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolutionary and functional divergence of MYB regulatory networks in flavonoid biosynthesis across Poaceae, non-Poaceae monocots, and eudicot horticultural plants.Horticulture research · 2026Review
- A Novel Agro-Waste Formulated Medium Enhanced the Growth of Electrogenic Enterobacter Species Isolated Using Microbial Fuel Cell System: Response Surface Methodology Approach.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Mitochondrial codon usage bias and novel phylogenetic insights: implications for taxonomic reevaluation of seven Xylotini species (Diptera, Syrphidae, Eristalinae).BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Bacterial community structure and secondary metabolite insights from halophiles at Oniru Beach, Lagos.Archives of microbiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Felsenstein's bootstrap is the most commonly used method to measure branch support in phylogenetics. Current sequencing technologies can result in massive sampling of taxa (e.g. SARS-CoV-2). In this case, the sequences are very similar, the trees are short, and the branches correspond to a small number of mutations (possibly 0). Nevertheless, these trees contain a strong signal, with unresolved parts but a low rate of false branches. With such data, Felsenstein's bootstrap is not satisfactory. Due to the frequentist nature of bootstrap sampling, the expected support of a branch corresponding to a single mutation is ∼63%, even though it is highly likely to be correct. Here, we propose a Bayesian version of the phylogenetic bootstrap in which sites are assigned uninformative prior probabilities. The branch support can then be interpreted as a posterior probability. We do not view the alignment as a small subsample of a large sample of sites, but rather as containing all available information (e.g. as with complete viral genomes, which are becoming routine). We give formulas for expected supports under the assumption of perfect phylogeny, in both the frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, where a branch corresponding to a single mutation now has an expected support of ∼90%. Simulations show that these theoretical results are robust to realistic data. Analyses on low-homoplasy viral and nonviral datasets show that Bayesian bootstrap support is easier to interpret, with high supports for branches very likely to be correct. As homoplasy increases, the two supports become closer and strongly correlated.
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.