↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing and Synthesizing Phylogenies Using Tree Alignment Graphs

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Analyzing and Synthesizing Phylogenies Using Tree Alignment Graphs
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen A. Smith, Joseph W. Brown, Cody E. Hinchliff

Abstract

Phylogenetic trees are used to analyze and visualize evolution. However, trees can be imperfect datatypes when summarizing multiple trees. This is especially problematic when accommodating for biological phenomena such as horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, and hybridization, as well as topological conflict between datasets. Additionally, researchers may want to combine information from sets of trees that have partially overlapping taxon sets. To address the problem of analyzing sets of trees with conflicting relationships and partially overlapping taxon sets, we introduce methods for aligning, synthesizing and analyzing rooted phylogenetic trees within a graph, called a tree alignment graph (TAG). The TAG can be queried and analyzed to explore uncertainty and conflict. It can also be synthesized to construct trees, presenting an alternative to supertrees approaches. We demonstrate these methods with two empirical datasets. In order to explore uncertainty, we constructed a TAG of the bootstrap trees from the Angiosperm Tree of Life project. Analysis of the resulting graph demonstrates that areas of the dataset that are unresolved in majority-rule consensus tree analyses can be understood in more detail within the context of a graph structure, using measures incorporating node degree and adjacency support. As an exercise in synthesis (i.e., summarization of a TAG constructed from the alignment trees), we also construct a TAG consisting of the taxonomy and source trees from a recent comprehensive bird study. We synthesized this graph into a tree that can be reconstructed in a repeatable fashion and where the underlying source information can be updated. The methods presented here are tractable for large scale analyses and serve as a basis for an alternative to consensus tree and supertree methods. Furthermore, the exploration of these graphs can expose structures and patterns within the dataset that are otherwise difficult to observe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
United States 3 3%
Switzerland 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 101 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 26%
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Professor 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 12%
Environmental Science 9 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Mathematics 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 14 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,269,687
of 25,901,238 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,021
of 9,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,064
of 216,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#11
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,901,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 216,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.