CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Embracing Green Computing in Molecular Phylogenetics

Kumar, Sudhir·2022·Molecular Biology and Evolution
DOI 10.1093/molbev/msac043PMC PMC8894743
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Molecular evolutionary analyses require computationally intensive steps such as aligning multiple sequences, optimizing substitution models, inferring evolutionary trees, testing phylogenies by bootstrap analysis, and estimating divergence times. With the rise of large genomic data sets, phylogenomics is imposing a big carbon footprint on the environment with consequences for the planet’s health. Electronic waste and energy usage are large environmental issues. Fortunately, innovative methods and heuristics are available to shrink the carbon footprint, presenting researchers with opportunities to lower the environmental costs and greener evolutionary computing. Green computing will also enable greater scientific rigor and encourage broader participation in big data analytics.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/molbev/msac043

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This limitation restricts researchers' ability to apply PhyloG2P methods and inhibits the capacity for reproduction and verification of previous findings, eroding an important component of rigorous scientific research.

    “This limitation not only restricts researchers’ ability to apply PhyloG2P methods, it also inhibits the capacity for reproduction and verification of previous findings, eroding an important component of rigorous scientific research (Kumar 2022).”

    From From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Kumar 2022

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Abadi, 2020, Modelteller: model selection for optimal phylogenetic reconstruction using machine learning, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 3338, 10.1093/molbev/msaa154 · DOI
  2. Álvarez-Carretero, 2022, A species-level timeline of mammal evolution integrating phylogenomic data, Nature, 602, 263, 10.1038/s41586-021-04341-1 · DOI
  3. Barba-Montoya, 2020, Using a GTR+Γ substitution model for dating sequence divergence when stationarity and time-reversibility assumptions are violated, Bioinformatics, 36, i884, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa820 · DOI
  4. Bender, 2021, On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big, 610
  5. Darriba, 2020, ModelTest-NG: a new and scalable tool for the selection of DNA and protein evolutionary models, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 291, 10.1093/molbev/msz189 · DOI
  6. Felsenstein, 1985, Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap, Evolution, 39, 783, 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x · DOI
  7. Grealey, 2022, The carbon footprint of bioinformatics, Mol Biol Evol, 10.1093/molbev/msac034 · DOI
  8. Jones, 2018, How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity, Nature, 561, 163, 10.1038/d41586-018-06610-y · DOI · Paper page
  9. Kalyaanamoorthy, 2017, ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates, Nat Methods, 14, 587, 10.1038/nmeth.4285 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Kapli, 2020, Phylogenetic tree building in the genomic age, Nat Rev Genet, 21, 428, 10.1038/s41576-020-0233-0 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Kumar, 2007, Multiple sequence alignment: in pursuit of homologous DNA positions, Genome Res, 17, 127, 10.1101/gr.5232407 · DOI
  12. Kumar, 2016, Advances in time estimation methods for molecular data, Mol Biol Evol, 33, 863, 10.1093/molbev/msw026 · DOI
  13. Kumar, 2021, Evolutionary sparse learning for phylogenomics, Mol Biol Evol, 38, 4674, 10.1093/molbev/msab227 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lannelongue, 2021, Ten simple rules to make your computing more environmentally sustainable, PLoS Comput Biol, 17, 6, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009324 · DOI
  15. Lannelongue, 2021, Green algorithms: quantifying the carbon footprint of computation, Adv Sci (Weinh), 8, 2100707, 10.1002/advs.202100707 · DOI
  16. Mello, 2021, Molecular dating for phylogenies containing a mix of populations and species by using Bayesian and RelTime approaches, Mol Ecol Resour, 21, 122, 10.1111/1755-0998.13249 · DOI
  17. Minh, 2013, Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap, Mol Biol Evol, 30, 1188, 10.1093/molbev/mst024 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Nei, 2000, Molecular evolution and phylogenetics, 10.1093/oso/9780195135848.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Portegies Zwart, 2020, The ecological impact of high-performance computing in astrophysics, Nat Astron, 4, 819, 10.1038/s41550-020-1208-y · DOI
  20. Posada, 2008, jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging, Mol Biol Evol, 25, 1253, 10.1093/molbev/msn083 · DOI
  21. Price, 2010, FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments, PLoS One, 5, e9490, 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Rosenberg, 2001, Traditional phylogenetic reconstruction methods reconstruct shallow and deep evolutionary relationships equally well, Mol Biol Evol, 18, 1823, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003969 · DOI
  23. Saitou, 1987, The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol Biol Evol, 4, 406
  24. Sharma, 2021, Fast and accurate bootstrap confidence limits on genome-scale phylogenies using little bootstraps, Nat Comput Sci, 1, 573, 10.1038/s43588-021-00129-5 · DOI
  25. Stamatakis, 2014, RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies, Bioinformatics, 30, 1312, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Stamatakis, 2008, A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers, Syst Biol, 57, 758, 10.1080/10635150802429642 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Stevens, 2020, The imperative to reduce carbon emissions in astronomy, Nat Astron, 4, 843, 10.1038/s41550-020-1169-1 · DOI
  28. 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
  29. Tao, 2020, The molecular evolutionary clock, 197, 10.1007/978-3-030-60181-2_12 · DOI
  30. Yang, 2012, Molecular phylogenetics: principles and practice, Nat Rev Genet, 13, 303, 10.1038/nrg3186 · DOI
  31. Yoshida, 2016, Efficiencies of the NJp, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods of phylogenetic construction for compositional and noncompositional genes, Mol Biol Evol, 33, 1618, 10.1093/molbev/msw042 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, 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
2022-03-01
Volume
39
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0737-4038
  • 1537-1719
DOI
10.1093/molbev/msac043
PMC
PMC8894743
Cited by
37
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 3 d)
Funders
a grant from the National Institutes of Health to S.K. (R35GM139540-02)

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