↓ Skip to main content

The performance of coalescent-based species tree estimation methods under models of missing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
The performance of coalescent-based species tree estimation methods under models of missing data
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4619-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Nute, Jed Chou, Erin K. Molloy, Tandy Warnow

Abstract

Estimation of species trees from multiple genes is complicated by processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, gene duplication and loss, and horizontal gene transfer, that result in gene trees that differ from each other and from the species phylogeny. Methods to estimate species trees in the presence of gene tree discord due to incomplete lineage sorting have been developed and proved to be statistically consistent when gene tree discord is due only to incomplete lineage sorting and every gene tree includes the full set of species. We establish statistical consistency of certain coalescent-based species tree estimation methods under some models of taxon deletion from genes. We also evaluate the impact of missing data on four species tree estimation methods (ASTRAL-II, ASTRID, MP-EST, and SVDquartets) using simulated datasets with varying levels of incomplete lineage sorting, gene tree estimation error, and degrees/patterns of missing data. All the species tree estimation methods improved in accuracy as the number of genes increased and often produced highly accurate species trees even when the amount of missing data was large. These results together indicate that accurate species tree estimation is possible under a variety of conditions, even when there are substantial amounts of missing data.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 16%
Computer Science 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 22%
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 13 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,488,697
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#9,326
of 10,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,388
of 327,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#211
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,699 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 327,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.