↓ Skip to main content

The best of both worlds: Phylogenetic eigenvector regression and mapping

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics and Molecular Biology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The best of both worlds: Phylogenetic eigenvector regression and mapping
Published in
Genetics and Molecular Biology, September 2015
DOI 10.1590/s1415-475738320140391
Pubmed ID
Authors

José Alexandre Felizola Diniz Filho, Fabricio Villalobos, Luis Mauricio Bini

Abstract

Eigenfunction analyses have been widely used to model patterns of autocorrelation in time, space and phylogeny. In a phylogenetic context, Diniz-Filho et al. (1998) proposed what they called Phylogenetic Eigenvector Regression (PVR), in which pairwise phylogenetic distances among species are submitted to a Principal Coordinate Analysis, and eigenvectors are then used as explanatory variables in regression, correlation or ANOVAs. More recently, a new approach called Phylogenetic Eigenvector Mapping (PEM) was proposed, with the main advantage of explicitly incorporating a model-based warping in phylogenetic distance in which an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (O-U) process is fitted to data before eigenvector extraction. Here we compared PVR and PEM in respect to estimated phylogenetic signal, correlated evolution under alternative evolutionary models and phylogenetic imputation, using simulated data. Despite similarity between the two approaches, PEM has a slightly higher prediction ability and is more general than the original PVR. Even so, in a conceptual sense, PEM may provide a technique in the best of both worlds, combining the flexibility of data-driven and empirical eigenfunction analyses and the sounding insights provided by evolutionary models well known in comparative analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
Germany 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 53%
Environmental Science 17 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Unspecified 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,690,751
of 6,526,504 outputs
Outputs from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#62
of 210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,655
of 208,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,526,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 208,914 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.