↓ Skip to main content

Species Tree Inference with BPP Using Genomic Sequences and the Multispecies Coalescent

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, July 2018
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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.
Title
Species Tree Inference with BPP Using Genomic Sequences and the Multispecies Coalescent
Published in
Molecular Biology and Evolution, July 2018
DOI 10.1093/molbev/msy147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomáš Flouri, Xiyun Jiao, Bruce Rannala, Ziheng Yang

Abstract

The multispecies coalescent (MSC) provides a natural framework for accommodating ancestral genetic polymorphism and coalescent processes that can cause different genomic regions to have different genealogical histories. The Bayesian program bpp includes a full-likelihood implementation of the MSC, using trans-model Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to calculate the posterior probabilities of different species trees. Bpp is suitable for analyzing multi-locus sequence datasets and it accommodates the heterogeneity of gene trees (both the topology and branch lengths) among loci and gene tree uncertainties due to limited phylogenetic information at each locus. Here we provide a practical guide to the use of bpp in species tree estimation. Bpp is a command-line program that runs on linux, macosx, and windows. This protocol shows how to use both bpp 3.4 (http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/software/) and bpp 4.0 (https://github.com/bpp/).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 42%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 6 10%
Unspecified 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 23%
Unspecified 7 11%
Mathematics 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 3 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#452,262
of 12,914,084 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology and Evolution
#235
of 3,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,961
of 267,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology and Evolution
#11
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,914,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 267,901 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.