↓ Skip to main content

Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry
Published in
Biology Direct, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo de Oliveira Martins, David Posada

Abstract

The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive. A phylogenetic test has been proposed for quantifying its odds against independently originated sequences based on the comparison between one versus several trees. This test was successfully applied to a well-supported homologous sequence alignment, which was however criticized on the basis of simulations showing that alignments without any phylogenetic structure could mislead its conclusions. Here we present a simplified version of this same counterexample, which can be interpreted as a tree with arbitrarily long branches, and where the UCA test fails again. We also present another case whereby any sufficiently similar alignment will favour UCA irrespective of the true independent origins for the sequences. Finally, we present a class of frequentist tests that perform better than the purportedly formal UCA test. Despite claims to the contrary, we show that the counterexamples successfully detected a drawback of the original UCA test, of relying on sequence similarity. In light of our own simulations, we therefore conclude that the UCA test as originally proposed should not be trusted unless convergence has already been ruled out a priori. This article was reviewed by Professor Eugene Koonin, Dr. Yuri I. Wolf and Professor William Martin.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
New Zealand 1 6%
Spain 1 6%
Unknown 14 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Professor 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Mathematics 3 18%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#5,461,539
of 22,641,687 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#195
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,309
of 300,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,641,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 300,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 64% of its contemporaries.