Search anything and hit enter
  • Teams
  • Members
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Calls
  • Jobs
  • publications
  • Software
  • Tools
  • Network
  • Equipment

A little guide for advanced search:

  • Tip 1. You can use quotes "" to search for an exact expression.
    Example: "cell division"
  • Tip 2. You can use + symbol to restrict results containing all words.
    Example: +cell +stem
  • Tip 3. You can use + and - symbols to force inclusion or exclusion of specific words.
    Example: +cell -stem
e.g. searching for members in projects tagged cancer
Search for
Count
IN
OUT
Content 1
  • member
  • team
  • department
  • center
  • program_project
  • nrc
  • whocc
  • project
  • software
  • tool
  • patent
  • Administrative Staff
  • Assistant Professor
  • Associate Professor
  • Clinical Research Assistant
  • Clinical Research Nurse
  • Clinician Researcher
  • Department Manager
  • Dual-education Student
  • Full Professor
  • Honorary Professor
  • Lab assistant
  • Master Student
  • Non-permanent Researcher
  • Nursing Staff
  • Permanent Researcher
  • Pharmacist
  • PhD Student
  • Physician
  • Post-doc
  • Prize
  • Project Manager
  • Research Associate
  • Research Engineer
  • Retired scientist
  • Technician
  • Undergraduate Student
  • Veterinary
  • Visiting Scientist
  • Deputy Director of Center
  • Deputy Director of Department
  • Deputy Director of National Reference Center
  • Deputy Head of Facility
  • Director of Center
  • Director of Department
  • Director of Institute
  • Director of National Reference Center
  • Group Leader
  • Head of Facility
  • Head of Operations
  • Head of Structure
  • Honorary President of the Departement
  • Labex Coordinator
Content 2
  • member
  • team
  • department
  • center
  • program_project
  • nrc
  • whocc
  • project
  • software
  • tool
  • patent
  • Administrative Staff
  • Assistant Professor
  • Associate Professor
  • Clinical Research Assistant
  • Clinical Research Nurse
  • Clinician Researcher
  • Department Manager
  • Dual-education Student
  • Full Professor
  • Honorary Professor
  • Lab assistant
  • Master Student
  • Non-permanent Researcher
  • Nursing Staff
  • Permanent Researcher
  • Pharmacist
  • PhD Student
  • Physician
  • Post-doc
  • Prize
  • Project Manager
  • Research Associate
  • Research Engineer
  • Retired scientist
  • Technician
  • Undergraduate Student
  • Veterinary
  • Visiting Scientist
  • Deputy Director of Center
  • Deputy Director of Department
  • Deputy Director of National Reference Center
  • Deputy Head of Facility
  • Director of Center
  • Director of Department
  • Director of Institute
  • Director of National Reference Center
  • Group Leader
  • Head of Facility
  • Head of Operations
  • Head of Structure
  • Honorary President of the Departement
  • Labex Coordinator
Search

← Go to Research

Go back
Scroll to top
Share
© Research
Publication : Systematic biology

Robustness of Felsenstein’s Versus Transfer Bootstrap Supports With Respect to Taxon Sampling.

Scientific Fields
Diseases
Organisms
Applications
Technique

Published in Systematic biology - 10 Aug 2023

Zaharias P, Lemoine F, Gascuel O

Link to Pubmed [PMID] – 37756489

Link to DOI – 10.1093/sysbio/syad052

Syst Biol 2023 Aug; ():

The bootstrap method is based on resampling sequence alignments and re-estimating trees. Felsenstein’s bootstrap proportions (FBP) are the most common approach to assess the reliability and robustness of sequence-based phylogenies. However, when increasing taxon sampling (i.e., the number of sequences) to hundreds or thousands of taxa, FBP tend to return low support for deep branches. The transfer bootstrap expectation (TBE) has been recently suggested as an alternative to FBP. TBE is measured using a continuous transfer index in [0,1] for each bootstrap tree, instead of the binary {0,1} index used in FBP to measure the presence/absence of the branch of interest. TBE has been shown to yield higher and more informative supports while inducing a very low number of falsely supported branches. Nonetheless, it has been argued that TBE must be used with care due to sampling issues, especially in datasets with a high number of closely related taxa. In this study, we conduct multiple experiments by varying taxon sampling and comparing FBP and TBE support values on different phylogenetic depths, using empirical datasets. Our results show that the main critique of TBE stands in extreme cases with shallow branches and highly unbalanced sampling among clades, but that TBE is still robust in most cases, while FBP is inescapably negatively impacted by high taxon sampling. We suggest guidelines and good practices in TBE (and FBP) computing and interpretation.