↓ Skip to main content

Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Detecting coevolution without phylogenetic trees? Tree-ignorant metrics of coevolution perform as well as tree-aware metrics
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-8-327
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Gregory Caporaso, Sandra Smit, Brett C Easton, Lawrence Hunter, Gavin A Huttley, Rob Knight

Abstract

Identifying coevolving positions in protein sequences has myriad applications, ranging from understanding and predicting the structure of single molecules to generating proteome-wide predictions of interactions. Algorithms for detecting coevolving positions can be classified into two categories: tree-aware, which incorporate knowledge of phylogeny, and tree-ignorant, which do not. Tree-ignorant methods are frequently orders of magnitude faster, but are widely held to be insufficiently accurate because of a confounding of shared ancestry with coevolution. We conjectured that by using a null distribution that appropriately controls for the shared-ancestry signal, tree-ignorant methods would exhibit equivalent statistical power to tree-aware methods. Using a novel t-test transformation of coevolution metrics, we systematically compared four tree-aware and five tree-ignorant coevolution algorithms, applying them to myoglobin and myosin. We further considered the influence of sequence recoding using reduced-state amino acid alphabets, a common tactic employed in coevolutionary analyses to improve both statistical and computational performance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 9%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Chile 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 106 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Professor 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 7 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 12%
Computer Science 12 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 11 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 October 2011.
All research outputs
#6,598,118
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,482
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,149
of 179,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#10
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 179,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.