The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accurate and Efficient Phylogenetic Inference through End-To-End Deep Learning
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Accurate phylogenetic inference is crucial for understanding evolutionary relationships among species. Deep learning technique has been introduced for phylogenetic inference; however, the existing deep learning-based approaches either suffer from limited accuracy as they split inference into several disjoint stages, or exhibit low efficiency and hardly apply to the cases with over 20 species. Here, we present an accurate and efficient approach to phylogenetic inference. Our approach, called NeuralNJ, employs an end-to-end framework that directly constructs phylogenetic trees from the input taxa, thus effectively avoiding the inaccuracy incurred by the split inference stages. The key innovation of NeuralNJ lies in its learnable neighbor joining mechanism, which iteratively joins neighbors guided by learned priority scores and thereby achieves accurate tree reconstruction. The inference accuracy is further enhanced through incorporating reinforcement learning-based tree search. Using both simulated and empirical data as representatives, we demonstrate that NeuralNJ can effectively infer phylogenetic tree with improved computational efficiency and reconstruction accuracy. The study paves the way to accurate and efficient phylogenetic inference for hundreds of taxa in complex evolutionary scenarios.
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
From telomere to telomere: The transcriptional and epigenetic state of human repeat elements
Hoyt, S. J., Storer, J. M., Hartley, G. A., Grady, P. G. S., Gershman, A., de Lima, L. G., Limouse, C., Halabian, R., Wojenski, L., Rodriguez, M., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abk3112 · Cited by 411
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 53
- Arenas, 2015, Trends in substitution models of molecular evolution, Front Genet, 6, 319, 10.3389/fgene.2015.00319 · DOI
- Azouri, 2024, The tree reconstruction game: phylogenetic reconstruction using reinforcement learning, Mol Biol Evol, 41, msae105, 10.1093/molbev/msae105 · DOI
- Azouri, 2021, Harnessing machine learning to guide phylogenetic-tree search algorithms, Nat Commun, 12, 1983, 10.1038/s41467-021-22073-8 · DOI
- Bordewich, 2005, On the computational complexity of the rooted subtree prune and regraft distance, Ann Comb, 8, 409, 10.1007/s00026-004-0229-z · DOI
- Bouckaert, 2014, BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis, PLoS Comput Biol, 10, e1003537, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003537 · DOI · Paper page
- Brocchieri, 2001, Phylogenetic inferences from molecular sequences: review and critique, Theor Popul Biol, 59, 27, 10.1006/tpbi.2000.1485 · DOI
- Burges, 10.1145/1102351.1102363 · DOI · Paper page
- Chor, 2005, Maximum likelihood of evolutionary trees: hardness and approximation, Bioinformatics, 21, i97, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1027 · DOI
- Cock, 2009, Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics, Bioinformatics, 25, 1422, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163 · DOI · Paper page
- Farris, 1970, Methods for computing Wagner trees, Syst Biol, 19, 83, 10.1093/sysbio/19.1.83 · DOI
- Felsenstein, 1978, The number of evolutionary trees, Syst Biol, 27, 27, 10.2307/2412810 · DOI
- Felsenstein, 1981, Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach, J Mol Evol, 17, 368, 10.1007/BF01734359 · DOI · Paper page
- Felsenstein, 2004, Inferring phylogenies
- Fitch, 1967, Construction of phylogenetic trees: a method based on mutation distances as estimated from cytochrome c sequences is of general applicability, Science, 155, 279, 10.1126/science.155.3760.279 · DOI
- Gascuel, 1997, BIONJ: an improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data, Mol Biol Evol, 14, 685, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025808 · DOI
- Gómez-Corrales, 2020, Cryptic lineages respond differently to coral bleaching, Mol Ecol, 29, 4265, 10.1111/mec.v29.22 · DOI
- Gu, 2018, Recent advances in convolutional neural networks, Pattern Recognit, 77, 354, 10.1016/j.patcog.2017.10.013 · DOI · Paper page
- Guindon, 2010, New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0, Syst Biol, 59, 307, 10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · DOI · Paper page
- Ho, 2019, 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12180 · DOI · Paper page
- Jukes, 1969, Evolution of protein molecules, Mamm Prot Metabol, 3, 21, 10.1016/B978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Kozlov, 2019, RAxML-NG: a fast, scalable and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference, Bioinformatics, 35, 4453, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz305 · DOI
- Li, 2021, The emergence, genomic diversity and global spread of SARS-CoV-2, Nature, 600, 408, 10.1038/s41586-021-04188-6 · DOI
- Lythgoe, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 within-host diversity and transmission, Science, 372, eabg0821, 10.1126/science.abg0821 · DOI
- Ly-Trong, 2023, AliSim-HPC: parallel sequence simulator for phylogenetics, Bioinformatics, 39, btad540, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad540 · DOI
- Ly-Trong, 2022, AliSim: a fast and versatile phylogenetic sequence simulator for the genomic era, Mol Biol Evol, 39, msac092, 10.1093/molbev/msac092 · DOI
- Minh, 2020, IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 1530, 10.1093/molbev/msaa015 · DOI · Paper page
- Morel, 2020, Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 data is difficult, Mol Biol Evol, 38, 1777, 10.1093/molbev/msaa314 · DOI
- Naser-Khdour, 2021, 10.1101/2021.09.22.461455 · DOI
- Nesterenko, 2025, Phyloformer: fast, accurate, and versatile phylogenetic reconstruction with deep neural networks, Mol Biol Evol, 42, msaf051, 10.1093/molbev/msaf051 · DOI
- Nguyen, 2014, IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies, Mol Biol Evol, 32, 268, 10.1093/molbev/msu300 · DOI · Paper page
- Pickering, 2022, Divergent SARS-CoV-2 variant emerges in white-tailed deer with deer-to-human transmission, Nat Microbiol, 7, 2011, 10.1038/s41564-022-01268-9 · DOI
- Price, 2010, FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments, PLoS One, 5, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · DOI · Paper page
- Rannala, 1996, Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference, J Mol Evol, 43, 304, 10.1007/BF02338839 · DOI
- Rannala, 2008, Phylogenetic inference using whole genomes, Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 9, 217, 10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164407 · DOI
- Ranwez, 2001, Quartet-based phylogenetic inference: improvements and limits, Mol Biol Evol, 18, 1103, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003881 · DOI
- Robinson, 1981, Comparison of phylogenetic trees, Math Biosci, 53, 131, 10.1016/0025-5564(81)90043-2 · DOI
- Ronquist, 2012, MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space, Syst Biol, 61, 539, 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 · DOI
- Saitou, 1987, The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol Biol Evol, 4, 406, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454 · DOI
- Schuster, 1997, Bidirectional recurrent neural networks, IEEE Trans Signal Proc, 45, 2673, 10.1109/78.650093 · DOI · Paper page
- Shao, 2021, Application of Bayesian phylogenetic inference modelling for evolutionary genetic analysis and dynamic changes in 2019-nCoV, Brief Bioinform, 22, 896, 10.1093/bib/bbaa154 · DOI
- Smith, 2023, Phylogenetic inference using generative adversarial networks, Bioinformatics, 39, btad543, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad543 · DOI
- Sokal, 1958, A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships, Univ Kans Sci Bull, 38, 1409
- Stadler, 2011, Simulating trees with a fixed number of extant species, Syst Biol, 60, 676, 10.1093/sysbio/syr029 · DOI
- Sumner, 2012, Is the general time-reversible model bad for molecular phylogenetics?, Syst Biol, 61, 1069, 10.1093/sysbio/sys042 · DOI
- Swofford, 2009, The phylogenetic handbook: a practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing, 267, 10.1017/CBO9780511819049.010 · DOI
- Talevich, 2012, Bio.Phylo: a unified toolkit for processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic trees in Biopython, BMC Bioinformatics, 13, 209, 10.1186/1471-2105-13-209 · DOI
- Tavaré, 1986, Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequence, Lect Math Life Sci, 17, 57
- Waterman, 1978, On the similarity of dendrograms, J Theor Biol, 73, 789, 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90137-6 · DOI
- Williams, 1992, Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning, Mach Learn, 8, 229, 10.1007/BF00992696 · DOI
- Xie, 2023, ARTree: a deep autoregressive model for phylogenetic inference, Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 36, 14427
- Yang, 1994, Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods, J Mol Evol, 39, 306, 10.1007/BF00160154 · DOI · Paper page
- Zhou, 2017, Evaluating fast maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic programs using empirical phylogenomic data sets, Mol Biol Evol, 35, 486, 10.1093/molbev/msx302 · DOI · Paper page
- Zou, 2019, Deep residual neural networks resolve quartet molecular phylogenies, Mol Biol Evol, 37, 1495, 10.1093/molbev/msz307 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, X., Ding, S., Yu, C., Zhao, J., & Bu, D.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Ding, Shizhe
- Bu, Dongbo
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2025-10-23
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 11
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- PMC
- PMC12622301
- OpenAlex
- W4415478883
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2024YFC3405500)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (32271297, 82130055)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
- Keywords
- phylogenetic inference, end-to-end deep learning, computational efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Phylogeny
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