↓ Skip to main content

ghost-tree: creating hybrid-gene phylogenetic trees for diversity analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
ghost-tree: creating hybrid-gene phylogenetic trees for diversity analyses
Published in
Microbiome, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0153-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Fouquier, Jai Ram Rideout, Evan Bolyen, John Chase, Arron Shiffer, Daniel McDonald, Rob Knight, J Gregory Caporaso, Scott T. Kelley

Abstract

Fungi play critical roles in many ecosystems, cause serious diseases in plants and animals, and pose significant threats to human health and structural integrity problems in built environments. While most fungal diversity remains unknown, the development of PCR primers for the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) combined with next-generation sequencing has substantially improved our ability to profile fungal microbial diversity. Although the high sequence variability in the ITS region facilitates more accurate species identification, it also makes multiple sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis unreliable across evolutionarily distant fungi because the sequences are hard to align accurately. To address this issue, we created ghost-tree, a bioinformatics tool that integrates sequence data from two genetic markers into a single phylogenetic tree that can be used for diversity analyses. Our approach starts with a "foundation" phylogeny based on one genetic marker whose sequences can be aligned across organisms spanning divergent taxonomic groups (e.g., fungal families). Then, "extension" phylogenies are built for more closely related organisms (e.g., fungal species or strains) using a second more rapidly evolving genetic marker. These smaller phylogenies are then grafted onto the foundation tree by mapping taxonomic names such that each corresponding foundation-tree tip would branch into its new "extension tree" child. We applied ghost-tree to graft fungal extension phylogenies derived from ITS sequences onto a foundation phylogeny derived from fungal 18S sequences. Our analysis of simulated and real fungal ITS data sets found that phylogenetic distances between fungal communities computed using ghost-tree phylogenies explained significantly more variance than non-phylogenetic distances. The phylogenetic metrics also improved our ability to distinguish small differences (effect sizes) between microbial communities, though results were similar to non-phylogenetic methods for larger effect sizes. The Silva/UNITE-based ghost tree presented here can be easily integrated into existing fungal analysis pipelines to enhance the resolution of fungal community differences and improve understanding of these communities in built environments. The ghost-tree software package can also be used to develop phylogenetic trees for other marker gene sets that afford different taxonomic resolution, or for bridging genome trees with amplicon trees. ghost-tree is pip-installable. All source code, documentation, and test code are available under the BSD license at https://github.com/JTFouquier/ghost-tree .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 112 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 14%
Environmental Science 11 9%
Engineering 8 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 21 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 29 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,102,850
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#322
of 1,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,274
of 314,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 314,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.