↓ Skip to main content

treeman: an R package for efficient and intuitive manipulation of phylogenetic trees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
treeman: an R package for efficient and intuitive manipulation of phylogenetic trees
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2340-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic J. Bennett, Mark D. Sutton, Samuel T. Turvey

Abstract

Phylogenetic trees are hierarchical structures used for representing the inter-relationships between biological entities. They are the most common tool for representing evolution and are essential to a range of fields across the life sciences. The manipulation of phylogenetic trees-in terms of adding or removing tips-is often performed by researchers not just for reasons of management but also for performing simulations in order to understand the processes of evolution. Despite this, the most common programming language among biologists, R, has few class structures well suited to these tasks. We present an R package that contains a new class, called TreeMan, for representing the phylogenetic tree. This class has a list structure allowing phylogenetic trees to be manipulated more efficiently. Computational running times are reduced because of the ready ability to vectorise and parallelise methods. Development is also improved due to fewer lines of code being required for performing manipulation processes. We present three use cases-pinning missing taxa to a supertree, simulating evolution with a tree-growth model and detecting significant phylogenetic turnover-that demonstrate the new package's speed and simplicity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 28%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Environmental Science 6 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,778,343
of 25,211,948 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#717
of 4,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,140
of 433,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#15
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,211,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 433,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.