↓ Skip to main content

Inferring phylogenies of evolving sequences without multiple sequence alignment

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Inferring phylogenies of evolving sequences without multiple sequence alignment
Published in
Scientific Reports, September 2014
DOI 10.1038/srep06504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheong Xin Chan, Guillaume Bernard, Olivier Poirion, James M. Hogan, Mark A. Ragan

Abstract

Alignment-free methods, in which shared properties of sub-sequences (e.g. identity or match length) are extracted and used to compute a distance matrix, have recently been explored for phylogenetic inference. However, the scalability and robustness of these methods to key evolutionary processes remain to be investigated. Here, using simulated sequence sets of various sizes in both nucleotides and amino acids, we systematically assess the accuracy of phylogenetic inference using an alignment-free approach, based on D2 statistics, under different evolutionary scenarios. We find that compared to a multiple sequence alignment approach, D2 methods are more robust against among-site rate heterogeneity, compositional biases, genetic rearrangements and insertions/deletions, but are more sensitive to recent sequence divergence and sequence truncation. Across diverse empirical datasets, the alignment-free methods perform well for sequences sharing low divergence, at greater computation speed. Our findings provide strong evidence for the scalability and the potential use of alignment-free methods in large-scale phylogenomics.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 114 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 27%
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Professor 7 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 14%
Computer Science 12 10%
Environmental Science 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 20 16%
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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#12,710,028
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#54,098
of 122,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,946
of 252,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#314
of 741 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 122,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 252,706 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 741 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 57% of its contemporaries.