ArticleGenome biology and evolution2025
Impact of Phylogenetic Method Choice on Indel Analyses in HIV-1 Subtype B.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Insertions and deletions (indels) play a critical role in the evolutionary dynamics of genomes, yet their accurate detection and interpretation in phylogenetic studies remain challenging. Our study investigates the influence of different multiple sequence alignment (MSA) and ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) tools on indel pattern reconstruction, focusing on HIV-1 subtype B. We aim to understand how methodological choices affect the detection of indels, thereby emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate tools for evolutionary analyses to improve phylogenetic accuracy. We conducted a comparative analysis using five MSA tools (MAFFT, PRANK+F, IndelMaP, ProPIP, and Historian) and five ASR tools (GRASP, FastML, IndelMaP, ARPIP, and Historian). By examining inferred indel events across all tool combinations, we evaluated their rates, lengths, and positions within the genome, specifically analyzing the env gene and its V1 variable loop. Even though each method tested was able to reconstruct known variable regions in the env gene, our results highlight that the choice of MSA tool significantly impacts indel conservation and interpretation, more so than the choice of ASR tool. This finding underscores the necessity of context-specific MSA tool selection in phylogenetic studies and provides crucial insights for improving the accuracy of indel detection and evolutionary inferences in phylogenetic studies of HIV-1 and other genomes.
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.