ArticleEvolutionary journal of the Linnean Society2025
Recombination and phylogenetic inference.
Article in Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Codon usage optimization contributes to evolutionary dynamics of TetM following its acquisition via interspecies and intergeneric recombination events in recipient bacteria.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- A Pandemic-Scale Ancestral Recombination Graph for SARS-CoV-2.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
I explore the problem of inferring phylogenetic trees in the presence of recombination. Two widely used approaches are considered: concatenation methods assume all loci have one underlying gene tree; and species tree inference methods assume one gene tree underlies each locus (no intralocus recombination) and loci have independent gene trees (high interlocus recombination). The impact of recombination is different under these two approaches. Three strategies for addressing the impacts of recombination are considered: (i) studies of the statistical robustness of phylogenetic inference methods when recombination occurs and is not accounted for (if impacts are minimal, recombination can be safely ignored); (ii) methods that accommodate recombination by identifying recombinant regions to either eliminate recombinant loci (to reduce intralocus recombination) or to choose loci that are separated by multiple recombinations (to increase interlocus recombination); and (iii) methods for phylogenetic inference that aim to accommodate recombination by inferring breakpoints between regions of sequences with different gene trees or allow varying topology along a sequence. I conclude that recombination is likely to be more detrimental for concatenation methods, having little impact on topology or divergence time estimates for species tree inference methods. Recombination detection may not be necessary when performing species tree inference, and eliminating recombinant loci may bias parameter estimates. Methods allowing gene trees to vary across the genome still lack theory-based criteria for combining inferred gene trees to estimate a species tree; this could in principle be done using a multispecies coalescent model with recombination but is a considerable technical challenge.
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.