The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolutionary Sparse Learning for Phylogenomics
Published version of a preprint
Abstract
We introduce a supervised machine learning approach with sparsity constraints for phylogenomics, referred to as evolutionary sparse learning (ESL). ESL builds models with genomic loci—such as genes, proteins, genomic segments, and positions—as parameters. Using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator, ESL selects only the most important genomic loci to explain a given phylogenetic hypothesis or presence/absence of a trait. ESL models do not directly involve conventional parameters such as rates of substitutions between nucleotides, rate variation among positions, and phylogeny branch lengths. Instead, ESL directly employs the concordance of variation across sequences in an alignment with the evolutionary hypothesis of interest. ESL provides a natural way to combine different molecular and nonmolecular data types and incorporate biological and functional annotations of genomic loci in model building. We propose positional, gene, function, and hypothesis sparsity scores, illustrate their use through an example, and suggest several applications of ESL. The ESL framework has the potential to drive the development of a new class of computational methods that will complement traditional approaches in evolutionary genomics, particularly for identifying influential loci and sequences given a phylogeny and building models to test hypotheses. ESL’s fast computational times and small memory footprint will also help democratize big data analytics and improve scientific rigor in phylogenomics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ESL uses binary encoding to enable joint analysis of any genetic feature, such as SNPs or presence/absence of a genetic element, as well as epigenetic or environmental variables.
“ESL uses binary encoding to enable joint analysis of any genetic feature, such as SNPs or presence/absence of a genetic element, as well as epigenetic or environmental variables.”
From From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Kumar and Sharma 2021
ESL is orders of magnitude less computationally intensive than the PhyloG2P models discussed in this review.
“As well as its capacity to integrate a variety of variables relevant to phenotypic prediction, ESL is also orders of magnitude less computationally intensive than the PhyloG2P models discussed in this review.”
From From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Kumar and Sharma 2021
One approach to including other forms of molecular variation is to use machine learning models, such as the Evolutionary Sparse Learning (ESL) model of Kumar and Sharma (2021).
“One approach to including these other forms of molecular variation is to use machine learning models, such as the Evolutionary Sparse Learning (ESL) model of Kumar and Sharma (2021).”
From From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Kumar and Sharma 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No evidence that carotenoid pigments boost either immune or antioxidant defenses in a songbird
Koch, R. E., Kavazis, A. N., Hasselquist, D., Hood, W. R., Zhang, Y., Toomey, M. B., & Hill, G. E. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02974-x · Cited by 1,924
Perineuronal nets stabilize the grid cell network
Christensen, A. C., Lensjø, K. K., Lepperød, M. E., Dragly, S.-A., Sutterud, H., Blackstad, J. S., Fyhn, M., & Hafting, T. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20241-w · Cited by 1,865
Simon, N., Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.2012.681250 · Cited by 1,380
A significance test for the lasso
Lockhart, R., Taylor, J., Tibshirani, R. J., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/13-aos1175 · Cited by 541
Contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes
Shen, X.-X., Hittinger, C. T., & Rokas, A. (2017) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0126 · Cited by 520
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Abadi, 2020, Modelteller: model selection for optimal phylogenetic reconstruction using machine learning, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 3338, 10.1093/molbev/msaa154 · DOI
- Azouri, 2021, Harnessing machine learning to guide phylogenetic-tree search algorithms, Nat Commun, 12, 1983, 10.1038/s41467-021-22073-8 · DOI
- Breheny, 2009, Penalized methods for bi-level variable selection, Stat Interface, 2, 369, 10.4310/SII.2009.v2.n3.a10 · DOI
- Breiman, 1996, Heuristics of instability and stabilization in model selection, Ann Stat, 24, 2350, 10.1214/aos/1032181158 · DOI
- Carbon, 2021, The Gene Ontology resource: enriching a GOld mine, Nucleic Acids Res, 49, D325, 10.1093/nar/gkaa1113 · DOI · Paper page
- Le Cessie, 1992, Ridge estimators in logistic regression, J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat, 41, 191
- Chen, 2019, Extended adaptive Lasso for multi-class and multi-label feature selection, Knowledge-Based Syst, 173, 28, 10.1016/j.knosys.2019.02.021 · DOI
- Cule, 2011, Significance testing in ridge regression for genetic data, BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 372, 10.1186/1471-2105-12-372 · DOI
- Demir-Kavuk, 2011, Prediction using step-wise L1, L2 regularization and feature selection for small data sets with large number of features, BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 412, 10.1186/1471-2105-12-412 · DOI
- Fabish, 2019, Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Data Science, 210
- Fan, 2001, Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties, J Am Stat Assoc, 96, 1348, 10.1198/016214501753382273 · DOI
- Fawcett, 2006, An introduction to ROC analysis, Patt Recognit Lett, 27, 861, 10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 · DOI · Paper page
- Felsenstein, 1992, Phylogenies from restriction sites: a maximum-likelihood approach, Evolution, 46, 159
- Figueiredo, 2002, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems: Natural and Synthetic, 697
- Fitch, 1971, Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology, Syst Zool, 20, 406, 10.2307/2412116 · DOI
- Halawa, 2000, Tests of regression coefficients under ridge regression models, J Stat Comput Simul, 65, 341, 10.1080/00949650008812006 · DOI
- Hastie, 2015, Statistical learning with sparsity: the lasso and generalizations, 10.1201/b18401 · DOI
- Hosmer, 2013, Applied logistic regression., 10.1002/9781118548387 · DOI · Paper page
- Kulathinal, 2020, Handbook of digital innovation, 253, 10.4337/9781788119986.00031 · DOI
- Liu, 2010, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 1459
- Lunardon, 2014, ROSE: a package for binary imbalanced learning, R J, 6, 79, 10.32614/RJ-2014-008 · DOI
- Meier, 2008, The group lasso for logistic regression, J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol, 70, 53, 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00627.x · DOI
- Meinshausen, 2010, Stability selection, J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol, 72, 417, 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00740.x · DOI
- Qiao, 2017, A systematic review of structured sparse learning, Front Inf Technol Electron Eng, 18, 445, 10.1631/FITEE.1601489 · DOI
- Rao, 2016, Classification with the sparse group lasso, IEEE Trans Signal Process, 64, 448, 10.1109/TSP.2015.2488586 · DOI
- Roberts, 2014, Stabilizing the lasso against cross-validation variability, Comput Stat Data Anal, 70, 198, 10.1016/j.csda.2013.09.008 · DOI
- Schrider, 2016, S/HIC: robust identification of soft and hard sweeps using machine learning, PLoS Genet, 12, e1005928, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005928 · DOI
- Sugden, 2018, Localization of adaptive variants in human genomes using averaged one-dependence estimation, Nat Commun, 9, 703, 10.1038/s41467-018-03100-7 · DOI
- Suvorov, 2020, Accurate inference of tree topologies from multiple sequence alignments using deep learning, Syst Biol, 69, 221, 10.1093/sysbio/syz060 · DOI
- Tao, 2019, A machine learning method for detecting autocorrelation of evolutionary rates in large phylogenies, Mol Biol Evol, 36, 811, 10.1093/molbev/msz014 · DOI
- Tibshirani, 1996, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, J R Stat Soc Ser B, 58, 267, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · DOI · Paper page
- Tibshirani, 2013, The lasso problem and uniqueness, Electron J Stat, 7, 1456, 10.1214/13-EJS815 · DOI
- Vágó, 2006, Logistic ridge regression for clinical data analysis (a case study), Appl Ecol Env Res, 4, 171, 10.15666/aeer/0402_171179 · DOI
- Walker, 2018, Analyzing contentious relationships and outlier genes in phylogenomics, Syst Biol, 67, 916, 10.1093/sysbio/syy043 · DOI
- Wrinch, 1921, XLII. On certain fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci, 42, 369, 10.1080/14786442108633773 · DOI
- Ye, 2012, Sparse methods for biomedical data, SIGKDD Explor, 14, 4, 10.1145/2408736.2408739 · DOI
- Zou, 2005, Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net, J R Stat Soc B, 67, 301, 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00503.x · DOI · Paper page
- Zou, 2020, Deep residual neural networks resolve quartet molecular phylogenies, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 1495, 10.1093/molbev/msz307 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions
Macdonald, A. R., James, M. E., Mitchell, J. D., & Holland, B. R. (2025) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evaf150 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, S., & Sharma, S.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- ORCID
- Kumar, Sudhir
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-08-03
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4674-4682
- ISSN
- 0737-4038
- 1537-1719
- PMC
- PMC8557465
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
- Funders
- U.S. National Institutes of Health (GM-0126567-01)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review