↓ Skip to main content

Phylogeny analysis from gene-order data with massive duplications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Phylogeny analysis from gene-order data with massive duplications
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4129-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lingxi Zhou, Yu Lin, Bing Feng, Jieyi Zhao, Jijun Tang

Abstract

Gene order changes, under rearrangements, insertions, deletions and duplications, have been used as a new type of data source for phylogenetic reconstruction. Because these changes are rare compared to sequence mutations, they allow the inference of phylogeny further back in evolutionary time. There exist many computational methods for the reconstruction of gene-order phylogenies, including widely used maximum parsimonious methods and maximum likelihood methods. However, both methods face challenges in handling large genomes with many duplicated genes, especially in the presence of whole genome duplication. In this paper, we present three simple yet powerful methods based on maximum-likelihood (ML) approaches that encode multiplicities of both gene adjacency and gene content information for phylogenetic reconstruction. Extensive experiments on simulated data sets show that our new method achieves the most accurate phylogenies compared to existing approaches. We also evaluate our method on real whole-genome data from eleven mammals. The package is publicly accessible at http://www.geneorder.org . Our new encoding schemes successfully incorporate the multiplicity information of gene adjacencies and gene content into an ML framework, and show promising results in reconstruct phylogenies for whole-genome data in the presence of massive duplications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 33%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Energy 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#7,740
of 10,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,966
of 327,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#131
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,777 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.