Maximum likelihood supertrees
Systematic Biology, ISSN: 1063-5157, Vol: 57, Issue: 2, Page: 243-250
2008
- 81Citations
- 119Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations81
- Citation Indexes81
- CrossRef81
- 79
- Captures119
- Readers119
- 119
Article Description
We analyze a maximum likelihood approach for combining phylogenetic trees into a larger "supertree." This is based on a simple exponential model of phylogenetic error, which ensures that ML supertrees have a simple combinatorial description (as a median tree, minimizing a weighted sum of distances to the input trees). We show that this approach to ML supertree reconstruction is statistically consistent (it converges on the true species supertree as more input trees are combined), in contrast to the widely used MRP method, which we show can be statistically inconsistent under the exponential error model. We also show that this statistical consistency extends to an ML approach for constructing species supertrees from gene trees. In this setting, incomplete lineage sorting (due to coalescence rates of homologous genes being lower than speciation rates) has been shown to lead to gene trees that are frequently different from species trees, and this can confound efforts to reconstruct the species phylogeny correctly.
Bibliographic Details
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know