↓ Skip to main content

Inferring demographic parameters in bacterial genomic data using Bayesian and hybrid phylogenetic methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Inferring demographic parameters in bacterial genomic data using Bayesian and hybrid phylogenetic methods
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12862-018-1210-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Duchene, David A. Duchene, Jemma L. Geoghegan, Zoe A. Dyson, Jane Hawkey, Kathryn E. Holt

Abstract

Recent developments in sequencing technologies make it possible to obtain genome sequences from a large number of isolates in a very short time. Bayesian phylogenetic approaches can take advantage of these data by simultaneously inferring the phylogenetic tree, evolutionary timescale, and demographic parameters (such as population growth rates), while naturally integrating uncertainty in all parameters. Despite their desirable properties, Bayesian approaches can be computationally intensive, hindering their use for outbreak investigations involving genome data for a large numbers of pathogen isolates. An alternative to using full Bayesian inference is to use a hybrid approach, where the phylogenetic tree and evolutionary timescale are estimated first using maximum likelihood. Under this hybrid approach, demographic parameters are inferred from estimated trees instead of the sequence data, using maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference, or approximate Bayesian computation. This can vastly reduce the computational burden, but has the disadvantage of ignoring the uncertainty in the phylogenetic tree and evolutionary timescale. We compared the performance of a fully Bayesian and a hybrid method by analysing six whole-genome SNP data sets from a range of bacteria and simulations. The estimates from the two methods were very similar, suggesting that the hybrid method is a valid alternative for very large datasets. However, we also found that congruence between these methods is contingent on the presence of strong temporal structure in the data (i.e. clocklike behaviour), which is typically verified using a date-randomisation test in a Bayesian framework. To reduce the computational burden of this Bayesian test we implemented a date-randomisation test using a rapid maximum likelihood method, which has similar performance to its Bayesian counterpart. Hybrid approaches can produce reliable inferences of evolutionary timescales and phylodynamic parameters in a fraction of the time required for fully Bayesian analyses. As such, they are a valuable alternative in outbreak studies involving a large number of isolates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Computer Science 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,429
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,171
of 341,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#41
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 341,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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.