Cited by 257Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree

Mirarab, Siavash, Bayzid, Md. Shamsuzzoha, Boussau, Bastien, Warnow, Tandy·2014·Science

Abstract

Gene tree incongruence arising from incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) can reduce the accuracy of concatenation-based estimations of species trees. Although coalescent-based species tree estimation methods can have good accuracy in the presence of ILS, they are sensitive to gene tree estimation error. We propose a pipeline that uses bootstrapping to evaluate whether two genes are likely to have the same tree, then it groups genes into sets using a graph-theoretic optimization and estimates a tree on each subset using concatenation, and finally produces an estimated species tree from these trees using the preferred coalescent-based method. Statistical binning improves the accuracy of MP-EST, a popular coalescent-based method, and we use it to produce the first genome-scale coalescent-based avian tree of life.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1250463

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • JarvD5b was derived from concatenating single-gene alignments in JarvD5a into a smaller number of longer partitions, resulting in enhanced phylogenetic signal measured by average bootstrap support (ABS) of gene tree.

    “JarvD5b was derived from concatenating single-gene alignments in JarvD5a into a smaller number of longer partitions (Mirarab et al. 2014), resulting in enhanced phylogenetic signal (measured by average bootstrap support, or ABS, of gene tree)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mirarab, S., Bayzid, M. S., Boussau, B., & Warnow, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Warnow, Tandy
Venue
Science
Published
2014-12-12
Volume
346
Issue
6215
Pages
1250463-1250463
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2083015817
Cited by
257
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 1
FWCI
11.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • University of Alberta
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-BINF-0001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
species tree estimation, coalescent methods, incomplete lineage sorting, gene tree discordance, bootstrapping, graph optimization, maximum likelihood estimation, avian phylogeny, genome-scale phylogeny
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Mammals, Phylogeny, Vertebrates, Yeasts, Likelihood Functions, Sequence Alignment, Genome, Computational Biology

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