↓ Skip to main content

Automated Masking of AFLP Markers Improves Reliability of Phylogenetic Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Automated Masking of AFLP Markers Improves Reliability of Phylogenetic Analyses
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Kück, Carola Greve, Bernhard Misof, France Gimnich

Abstract

The amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) method has become an attractive tool in phylogenetics due to the ease with which large numbers of characters can be generated. In contrast to sequence-based phylogenetic approaches, AFLP data consist of anonymous multilocus markers. However, potential artificial amplifications or amplification failures of fragments contained in the AFLP data set will reduce AFLP reliability especially in phylogenetic inferences. In the present study, we introduce a new automated scoring approach, called "AMARE" (AFLP MAtrix REduction). The approach is based on replicates and makes marker selection dependent on marker reproducibility to control for scoring errors. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach we record error rate estimations, resolution scores, PCoA and stemminess calculations. As in general the true tree (i.e. the species phylogeny) is not known, we tested AMARE with empirical, already published AFLP data sets, and compared tree topologies of different AMARE generated character matrices to existing phylogenetic trees and/or other independent sources such as morphological and geographical data. It turns out that the selection of masked character matrices with highest resolution scores gave similar or even better phylogenetic results than the original AFLP data sets.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 32%
Researcher 9 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 70%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 2 5%
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 11 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,172,971
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,801
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,814
of 182,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,067
of 4,829 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 182,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,829 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.