↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic estimation error can decrease the accuracy of species delimitation: a Bayesian implementation of the general mixed Yule-coalescent model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
447 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
464 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
Phylogenetic estimation error can decrease the accuracy of species delimitation: a Bayesian implementation of the general mixed Yule-coalescent model
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah M Reid, Bryan C Carstens

Abstract

Species are considered the fundamental unit in many ecological and evolutionary analyses, yet accurate, complete, accessible taxonomic frameworks with which to identify them are often unavailable to researchers. In such cases DNA sequence-based species delimitation has been proposed as a means of estimating species boundaries for further analysis. Several methods have been proposed to accomplish this. Here we present a Bayesian implementation of an evolutionary model-based method, the general mixed Yule-coalescent model (GMYC). Our implementation integrates over the parameters of the model and uncertainty in phylogenetic relationships using the output of widely available phylogenetic models and Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation in order to produce marginal probabilities of species identities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 464 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Spain 8 2%
Germany 6 1%
Brazil 6 1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 421 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 118 25%
Researcher 88 19%
Student > Master 61 13%
Student > Bachelor 39 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 25 5%
Other 79 17%
Unknown 54 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 289 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 12%
Environmental Science 30 6%
Computer Science 9 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 <1%
Other 11 2%
Unknown 67 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 March 2013.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,676
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,136
of 191,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#19
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th 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 52% 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 191,231 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 56% of its contemporaries.