Graph Splitting: A Graph-Based Approach for Superfamily-Scale Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A protein superfamily contains distantly related proteins that have acquired diverse biological functions through a long evolutionary history. Phylogenetic analysis of the early evolution of protein superfamilies is a key challenge because existing phylogenetic methods show poor performance when protein sequences are too diverged to construct an informative multiple sequence alignment (MSA). Here, we propose the Graph Splitting (GS) method, which rapidly reconstructs a protein superfamily-scale phylogenetic tree using a graph-based approach. Evolutionary simulation showed that the GS method can accurately reconstruct phylogenetic trees and be robust to major problems in phylogenetic estimation, such as biased taxon sampling, heterogeneous evolutionary rates, and long-branch attraction when sequences are substantially diverge. Its application to an empirical data set of the triosephosphate isomerase (TIM)-barrel superfamily suggests rapid evolution of protein-mediated pyrimidine biosynthesis, likely taking place after the RNA world. Furthermore, the GS method can also substantially improve performance of widely used MSA methods by providing accurate guide trees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".