ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025
A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative genomics of nitrogen acquisition and assimilation gene-family copy-number architecture across chlorophytes.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Zebrafish relatives as models for functional comparative genetics and genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Isolation, Biocontrol Efficacy and Genomic Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- phyloPipeR: An R Package for End-to-End Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Tree Comparison.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- Evolutionary inference reveals global natural histories and predicted pathways of antimicrobial resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Improvement of Insulin Resistance byMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Plasmids promote antimicrobial resistance through insertion sequence-mediated gene inactivation.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- VINE: Variational inference for scalable Bayesian reconstruction of species and cell-lineage phylogenies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Cooperation and the evolution of bacterial niche breadth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Studying adaptation at the invisible scale.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Larger colony sizes favour greater division of labour between queens and workers in ants.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2026Article
- Phylogenomic and metabolomic approaches to provide insight for species delimitation of cultivatedFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Evolutionary Bioinformatics Expands its Breadth.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2026Article
- Behavioural ecology in the twenty-first century.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Review
- Biased sampling driven by bacterial population structure confounds machine learning prediction of antimicrobial resistance.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Augmenting microbial phylogenomic signal with tailored marker gene sets.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Robust regression rescues poor phylogenetic decisions.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Taxonomic position ofAoB PLANTS · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comparative genomics, whereby the genomes of different species are compared, has the potential to address broad and fundamental questions at the intersection of genetics and evolution. However, species, genomes and genes cannot be considered as independent data points within statistical tests. Closely related species tend to be similar because they share genes by common descent, which must be accounted for in analyses. This problem of non-independence may be exacerbated when examining genomes or genes but can be addressed by applying phylogeny-based methods to comparative genomic analyses. Here, we review how controlling for phylogeny can change the conclusions of comparative genomics studies. We address common questions on how to apply these methods and illustrate how they can be used to test causal hypotheses. The combination of rapidly expanding genomic datasets and phylogenetic comparative methods is set to revolutionize the biological insights possible from comparative genomic studies.
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.