Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32756444›Full record

ReviewMicroorganisms2020

Should Networks Supplant Tree Building?

Rob DeSalle, Margaret Riley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rob DeSalleSackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA.
Margaret RileyDepartment of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 116 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9526-484X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies suggested that network methods should supplant tree building as the basis of genealogical analysis. This proposition is based upon two arguments. First is the observation that bacterial and archaeal lineages experience processes oppositional to bifurcation and hence the representation of the evolutionary process in a tree like structure is illogical. Second is the argument tree building approaches are circular-you ask for a tree and you get one, which pins a verificationist label on tree building that, if correct, should be the end of phylogenetic analysis as we currently know it. In this review, we examine these questions and suggest that rumors of the death of the bacterial tree of life are exaggerated at best.

Indexed as

bacterial phylogenyhorizontal gene transfernetworks

Identifiers

PMID32756444
PMCPMC7466111

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.