↓ Skip to main content

A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for phylogenetic networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for phylogenetic networks
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-16-s10-s10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun Yu, Luay Nakhleh

Abstract

Several phylogenomic analyses have recently demonstrated the need to account simultaneously for incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) and hybridization when inferring a species phylogeny. A maximum likelihood approach was introduced recently for inferring species phylogenies in the presence of both processes, and showed very good results. However, computing the likelihood of a model in this case is computationally infeasible except for very small data sets. Inspired by recent work on the pseudo-likelihood of species trees based on rooted triples, we introduce the pseudo-likelihood of a phylogenetic network, which, when combined with a search heuristic, provides a statistical method for phylogenetic network inference in the presence of ILS. Unlike trees, networks are not always uniquely encoded by a set of rooted triples. Therefore, even when given sufficient data, the method might converge to a network that is equivalent under rooted triples to the true one, but not the true one itself. The method is computationally efficient and has produced very good results on the data sets we analyzed. The method is implemented in PhyloNet, which is publicly available in open source. Maximum pseudo-likelihood allows for inferring species phylogenies in the presence of hybridization and ILS, while scaling to much larger data sets than is currently feasible under full maximum likelihood. The nonuniqueness of phylogenetic networks encoded by a system of rooted triples notwithstanding, the proposed method infers the correct network under certain scenarios, and provides candidates for further exploration under other criteria and/or data in other scenarios.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 33%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 23%
Computer Science 5 5%
Mathematics 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 12 13%
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 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#9,281
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,965
of 275,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#330
of 351 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 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 10,655 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 275,399 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 351 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.