↓ Skip to main content

Fast and accurate branch lengths estimation for phylogenomic trees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Fast and accurate branch lengths estimation for phylogenomic trees
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0821-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Binet, Olivier Gascuel, Celine Scornavacca, Emmanuel J. P. Douzery, Fabio Pardi

Abstract

Branch lengths are an important attribute of phylogenetic trees, providing essential information for many studies in evolutionary biology. Yet, part of the current methodology to reconstruct a phylogeny from genomic information - namely supertree methods - focuses on the topology or structure of the phylogenetic tree, rather than the evolutionary divergences associated to it. Moreover, accurate methods to estimate branch lengths - typically based on probabilistic analysis of a concatenated alignment - are limited by large demands in memory and computing time, and may become impractical when the data sets are too large. Here, we present a novel phylogenomic distance-based method, named ERaBLE (Evolutionary Rates and Branch Length Estimation), to estimate the branch lengths of a given reference topology, and the relative evolutionary rates of the genes employed in the analysis. ERaBLE uses as input data a potentially very large collection of distance matrices, where each matrix is obtained from a different genomic region - either directly from its sequence alignment, or indirectly from a gene tree inferred from the alignment. Our experiments show that ERaBLE is very fast and fairly accurate when compared to other possible approaches for the same tasks. Specifically, it efficiently and accurately deals with large data sets, such as the OrthoMaM v8 database, composed of 6,953 exons from up to 40 mammals. ERaBLE may be used as a complement to supertree methods - or it may provide an efficient alternative to maximum likelihood analysis of concatenated alignments - to estimate branch lengths from phylogenomic data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
China 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 64 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 21%
Computer Science 6 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 20%
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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#16,099,609
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,488
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,763
of 399,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#102
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 399,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.