Data from: Supertrees based on the subtree prune-and-regraft distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supertree methods reconcile a set of phylogenetic trees into a single structure that is often interpreted as a branching history of species. A key challenge is combining conflicting evolutionary histories that are due to artifacts of phylogenetic reconstruction and phenomena such as lateral gene transfer (LGT). Although they often work well in practice, existing supertree approaches use optimality criteria that do not reflect underlying processes, have known biases and may be unduly influenced by LGT. We present the first method to construct supertrees by using the subtree prune-and-regraft (SPR) distance as an optimality criterion. Although calculating the rooted SPR distance between a pair of trees is NP-hard, our new maximum agreement forest-based methods can reconcile trees with hundreds of taxa and > 50 transfers in fractions of a second, which enables repeated calculations during the course of an iterative search. Our approach can accommodate trees in which uncertain relationships have been collapsed to multifurcating nodes. Using a series of simulated benchmark datasets, we show that SPR supertrees are more similar to correct species histories under plausible rates of LGT than supertrees based on parsimony or Robinson-Foulds distance criteria. We successfully constructed an SPR supertree from a phylogenomic dataset of 40,631 gene trees that covered 244 genomes representing several major bacterial phyla. Our SPR-based approach also allowed direct inference of highways of gene transfer between bacterial classes and genera; a small number of these highways connect genera in different phyla and can highlight specific genes implicated in long-distance LGT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".