↓ Skip to main content

Automatic selection of partitioning schemes for phylogenetic analyses using iterative k-means clustering of site rates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Automatic selection of partitioning schemes for phylogenetic analyses using iterative k-means clustering of site rates
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12862-015-0283-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul B Frandsen, Brett Calcott, Christoph Mayer, Robert Lanfear

Abstract

Model selection is a vital part of most phylogenetic analyses, and accounting for the heterogeneity in evolutionary patterns across sites is particularly important. Mixture models and partitioning are commonly used to account for this variation, and partitioning is the most popular approach. Most current partitioning methods require some a priori partitioning scheme to be defined, typically guided by known structural features of the sequences, such as gene boundaries or codon positions. Recent evidence suggests that these a priori boundaries often fail to adequately account for variation in rates and patterns of evolution among sites. Furthermore, new phylogenomic datasets such as those assembled from ultra-conserved elements lack obvious structural features on which to define a priori partitioning schemes. The upshot is that, for many phylogenetic datasets, partitioned models of molecular evolution may be inadequate, thus limiting the accuracy of downstream phylogenetic analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 149 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 23%
Researcher 29 18%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Professor 10 6%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 21 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 18%
Computer Science 9 6%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Chemistry 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 26 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,529,171
of 24,473,185 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#847
of 3,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,265
of 362,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#25
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,473,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 362,386 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.