Open Access
| Issue |
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 163, 2025
2025 15th International Conference on Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics (ICBBB 2025)
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 01004 | |
| Number of page(s) | 10 | |
| Section | Bioinformatics and Computational Biology | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202516301004 | |
| Published online | 06 March 2025 | |
- J.E. O’Reilly, P.C. Donoghue, The efficacy of consensus tree methods for summarizing phylogenetic relationships from a posterior sample of trees estimated from morphological data, Systematic biology 67, 354 (2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- J.H. Degnan, M. DeGiorgio, D. Bryant, N.A. Rosenberg, Properties of consensus methods for inferring species trees from gene trees, Systematic Biology 58, 35 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- N. Tahiri, B. Fichet, V. Makarenkov, Building alternative consensus trees and supertrees using k-means and robinson and foulds distance, Bioinformatics 38, 3367 (2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- N. Tahiri, M. Willems, V. Makarenkov, A new fast method for inferring multiple consensus trees using k-medoids, BMC evolutionary biology 18, 1 (2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- J. Felsenstein, Phylogenies and the comparative method, The American Naturalist 125, 1 (1985). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M.W. Hahn, T. De Bie, J.E. Stajich, C. Nguyen, N. Cristianini, Estimating the tempo and mode of gene family evolution from comparative genomic data, Genome research 15, 1153 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- S.L. Kosakovsky Pond, S.D. Frost, Not so different after all: a comparison of methods for detecting amino acid sites under selection, Molecular biology and evolution 22, 1208 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- E.M. Volz, K. Koelle, T. Bedford, Viral phylodynamics, PLoS computational biology 9, e1002947 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- V. Lefort, R. Desper, O. Gascuel, Fastme 2.0: a comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program, Molecular biology and evolution 32, 2798 (2015). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- B. Rannala, The art and science of species delimitation, Current Zoology 61, 846 (2015). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- D. Bryant, A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics, DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science 61, 163 (2003). [Google Scholar]
- J. Jansson, C. Shen, W.K. Sung, Improved algorithms for constructing consensus trees, Journal of the ACM (JACM) 63, 1 (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M. Wilkinson, J.L. Thorley, Efficiency of strict consensus trees, Systematic Biology 50, 610 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- M. Wilkinson, Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping., Molecular Biology and evolution 13, 437 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- J. Jansson, W.K. Sung, S.A. Tabatabaee, Y. Yang, A Faster Algorithm for Constructing the Frequency Difference Consensus Tree, in 41st International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2024) (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024), Vol. 289 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pp. 43:1–43:17 [Google Scholar]
- J.D. Velasco, The foundations of concordance views of phylogeny, Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 11 (2019). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M.H.R. Sifat, N. Tahiri, A new algorithm for building comprehensive consensus tree, in Graphs and more Complex structures for Learning and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 38th Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2024) [Google Scholar]
- V. Jarník, O jistém problému minimálním, Práca Moravské Prírodovedecké Spolecnosti 6, 57 (1930). [Google Scholar]
- P.J. Rousseeuw, Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis, Journal of computational and applied mathematics 20, 53 (1987). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.