↓ Skip to main content

The importance of replicating genomic analyses to verify phylogenetic signal for recently evolved lineages

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Ecology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
The importance of replicating genomic analyses to verify phylogenetic signal for recently evolved lineages
Published in
Molecular Ecology, July 2016
DOI 10.1111/mec.13708
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Genome-wide SNP data generated by non-targeted methods such as RAD and GBS are increasingly being used in phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses. When these methods are used in the absence of a reference genome, however, little is known about the locations and evolution of the SNPs. In using such data to address phylogenetic questions, researchers risk drawing false conclusions, particularly if a representative number of SNPs is not obtained. Here, we empirically test the robustness of phylogenetic inference based on SNP data for closely-related lineages. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 75,712 SNPs, generated via GBS, of southern bull-kelp (Durvillaea). Durvillaea chathamensis co-occurs with D. antarctica on Chatham Island, but the two species have previously been found to be so genetically similar that the status of the former has been questioned. Our results show that D. chathamensis, which differs from D. antarctica ecologically as well as morphologically, is indeed a reproductively isolated species. Furthermore, our replicated analyses show that D. chathamensis cannot be reliably distinguished phylogenetically from closely-related D. antarctica using subsets (ranging in size from 400 to 40,912 sites) of the parsimony-informative SNPs in our dataset, and that bootstrap values alone can give misleading impressions of the strength of phylogenetic inferences. These results highlight the importance of independently replicating SNP analyses to verify that phylogenetic inferences based on non-targeted SNP data are robust. Our study also demonstrates that modern genomic approaches can be used to identify cases of recent or incipient speciation that traditional approaches (e.g., Sanger sequencing of a few loci) may be unable to detect or resolve. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 profiles of 2 X users 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 71 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 %
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 25%
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 18%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Chemistry 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 11%
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 17 July 2024.
All research outputs
#8,272,532
of 27,945,582 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Ecology
#3,462
of 7,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,944
of 316,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Ecology
#51
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,945,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 316,674 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.