↓ Skip to main content

Multipolar Consensus for Phylogenetic Trees

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Biology, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
42 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.
Article details
Title
Multipolar Consensus for Phylogenetic Trees
Published in
Systematic Biology, October 2006
DOI 10.1080/10635150600969880
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Collections of phylogenetic trees are usually summarized using consensus methods. These methods build a single tree, supposed to be representative of the collection. However, in the case of heterogeneous collections of trees, the resulting consensus may be poorly resolved (strict consensus, majority-rule consensus, ...), or may perform arbitrary choices among mutually incompatible clades, or splits (greedy consensus). Here, we propose an alternative method, which we call the multipolar consensus (MPC). Its aim is to display all the splits having a support above a predefined threshold, in a minimum number of consensus trees, or poles. We show that the problem is equivalent to a graph-coloring problem, and propose an implementation of the method. Finally, we apply the MPC to real data sets. Our results indicate that, typically, all the splits down to a weight of 10% can be displayed in no more than 4 trees. In addition, in some cases, biologically relevant secondary signals, which would not have been present in any of the classical consensus trees, are indeed captured by our method, indicating that the MPC provides a convenient exploratory method for phylogenetic analysis. The method was implemented in a package freely available at http://www.lirmm.fr/~cbonnard/MPC.html

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Brazil 2 5%
New Zealand 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Czechia 1 2%
Unknown 32 76%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 19%
Professor 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 69%
Computer Science 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 1 2%
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 14 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Biology
#1,743
of 1,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,347
of 88,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Biology
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 88,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.