↓ Skip to main content

Do Branch Lengths Help to Locate a Tree in a Phylogenetic Network?

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Do Branch Lengths Help to Locate a Tree in a Phylogenetic Network?
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11538-016-0199-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Gambette, Leo van Iersel, Steven Kelk, Fabio Pardi, Celine Scornavacca

Abstract

Phylogenetic networks are increasingly used in evolutionary biology to represent the history of species that have undergone reticulate events such as horizontal gene transfer, hybrid speciation and recombination. One of the most fundamental questions that arise in this context is whether the evolution of a gene with one copy in all species can be explained by a given network. In mathematical terms, this is often translated in the following way: is a given phylogenetic tree contained in a given phylogenetic network? Recently this tree containment problem has been widely investigated from a computational perspective, but most studies have only focused on the topology of the phylogenies, ignoring a piece of information that, in the case of phylogenetic trees, is routinely inferred by evolutionary analyses: branch lengths. These measure the amount of change (e.g., nucleotide substitutions) that has occurred along each branch of the phylogeny. Here, we study a number of versions of the tree containment problem that explicitly account for branch lengths. We show that, although length information has the potential to locate more precisely a tree within a network, the problem is computationally hard in its most general form. On a positive note, for a number of special cases of biological relevance, we provide algorithms that solve this problem efficiently. This includes the case of networks of limited complexity, for which it is possible to recover, among the trees contained by the network with the same topology as the input tree, the closest one in terms of branch lengths.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 29%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 43%
Computer Science 2 29%
Mathematics 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,240,924
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#283
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,297
of 321,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 321,036 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.