ArticlePloS one2025
The impact of software and criteria on the selection of best-fit nucleotide substitution models for molecular evolutionary genetic analysis.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concatenation, Conflict, and Complexity: Genealogical Heterogeneity Mimics Substitutional Heterogeneity for Nucleotide Model Selection.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- Entomopathogenic fungi as potential biological control agents against basal stem rot in oil palm plantations of Sabah, Malaysia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A scalable maximum-likelihood framework for near-real-time monitoring of MERS-CoV evolutionary and zoonotic dynamics.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.