Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40138374›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The impact of software and criteria on the selection of best-fit nucleotide substitution models for molecular evolutionary genetic analysis.

Xingguang Li, Olayinka Sunday Okoh, Nídia Sequeira Trovão

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xingguang LiNingbo No. 2 Hospital, Ningbo, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3470-2196
Olayinka Sunday OkohDepartment of Chemical Sciences, Anchor University, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0001-6438-3379
Nídia Sequeira TrovãoDivision of International Epidemiology and Population Studies, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The statistical selection of best-fit models of nucleotide substitution for multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) is routine in phylogenetics. Our analysis of model selection across three widely used phylogenetic programs (jModelTest2, ModelTest-NG, and IQ-TREE) demonstrated that the choice of program did not significantly affect the ability to accurately identify the true nucleotide substitution model. This finding indicates that researchers can confidently rely on any of these programs for model selection, as they offer comparable accuracy without substantial differences. However, our results underscore the critical impact of the information criterion chosen for model selection. BIC consistently outperformed both AIC and AICc in accurately identifying the true model, regardless of the program used. This observation highlights the importance of carefully selecting the information criterion, with a preference for BIC, when determining the best-fit model for phylogenetic analyses. This study provides an assessment of popular model selection programs while contributing to the advancement of more robust statistical methods and tools for accurately identifying the most suitable nucleotide substitution models.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularModels, GeneticNucleotidesSoftwarePhylogenySequence AlignmentNucleotides

Identifiers

PMID40138374
PMCPMC11940733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.