Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 240

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Avoiding Missing Data Biases in Phylogenomic Inference: An Empirical Study in the Landfowl (Aves: Galliformes)

Open access
Hosner, Peter A., Faircloth, Brant C., Glenn, Travis C., Braun, Edward L., Kimball, Rebecca T.·2016·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

Production of massive DNA sequence data sets is transforming phylogenetic inference, but best practices for analyzing such data sets are not well established. One uncertainty is robustness to missing data, particularly in coalescent frameworks. To understand the effects of increasing matrix size and loci at the cost of increasing missing data, we produced a 90 taxon, 2.2 megabase, 4,800 locus sequence matrix of landfowl using target capture of ultraconserved elements. We then compared phylogenies estimated with concatenated maximum likelihood, quartet-based methods executed on concatenated matrices and gene tree reconciliation methods, across five thresholds of missing data. Results of maximum likelihood and quartet analyses were similar, well resolved, and demonstrated increasing support with increasing matrix size and sparseness. Conversely, gene tree reconciliation produced unexpected relationships when we included all informative loci, with certain taxa placed toward the root compared with other approaches. Inspection of these taxa identified a prevalence of short average contigs, which potentially biased gene tree inference and caused erroneous results in gene tree reconciliation. This suggests that the more problematic missing data in gene tree-based analyses are partial sequences rather than entire missing sequences from locus alignments. Limiting gene tree reconciliation to the most informative loci solved this problem, producing well-supported topologies congruent with concatenation and quartet methods. Collectively, our analyses provide a well-resolved phylogeny of landfowl, including strong support for previously problematic relationships such as those among junglefowl (Gallus), and clarify the position of two enigmatic galliform genera (Lerwa, Melanoperdix) not sampled in previous molecular phylogenetic studies.

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/msv347

Cites

13 of 13 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

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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 240

Metadata

Authors
Hosner, P. A., Faircloth, B. C., Glenn, T. C., Braun, E. L., & Kimball, R. T.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2015-12-29
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
1110-1125
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2263985547
Cited by
240
References
13
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Avoiding Missing Data Biases in Phylogenomic Inference: An Empirical Study in the Landfowl (Aves: Galliformes). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/molbev/msv347
The paper
Hosner, P. A., Faircloth, B. C., Glenn, T. C., Braun, E. L., & Kimball, R. T. (2016). Avoiding Missing Data Biases in Phylogenomic Inference: An Empirical Study in the Landfowl (Aves: Galliformes). Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv347

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.