These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14965902)

  • 1. Congruence versus phylogenetic accuracy: revisiting the incongruence length difference test.
    Hipp AL; Hall JC; Sytsma KJ
    Syst Biol; 2004 Feb; 53(1):81-9. PubMed ID: 14965902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Failure of the ILD to determine data combinability for slow loris phylogeny.
    Yoder AD; Irwin JA; Payseur BA
    Syst Biol; 2001 Jun; 50(3):408-24. PubMed ID: 12116583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Increased congruence does not necessarily indicate increased phylogenetic accuracy--the behavior of the incongruence length difference test in mixed-model analyses.
    Dowton M; Austin AD
    Syst Biol; 2002 Feb; 51(1):19-31. PubMed ID: 11943090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Chromosomal phylogeny of three Lorisidae: Loris tardigradus, Nycticebus coucang and Perodicticus potto.
    Rumpler Y; Warter S; Meier B; Preuschoft H; Dutrillaux B
    Folia Primatol (Basel); 1987; 48(3-4):216-20. PubMed ID: 3127315
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies.
    Pisani D; Benton MJ; Wilkinson M
    Acta Biotheor; 2007; 55(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17657570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A scalable and flexible approach for investigating the genomic landscapes of phylogenetic incongruence.
    Prasad AB; Mullikin JC; ; Green ED
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2013 Mar; 66(3):1067-74. PubMed ID: 23247042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detecting the node-density artifact in phylogeny reconstruction.
    Venditti C; Meade A; Pagel M
    Syst Biol; 2006 Aug; 55(4):637-43. PubMed ID: 16969939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Using a multi-gene approach to infer the complicated phylogeny and evolutionary history of lorises (Order Primates: Family Lorisidae).
    Munds RA; Titus CL; Eggert LS; Blomquist GE
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2018 Oct; 127():556-567. PubMed ID: 29807155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimating species trees: methods of phylogenetic analysis when there is incongruence across genes.
    Knowles LL
    Syst Biol; 2009 Oct; 58(5):463-7. PubMed ID: 20525600
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods.
    Cunningham CW
    Syst Biol; 1997 Sep; 46(3):464-78. PubMed ID: 11975330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of combining molecular and morphological data in published phylogenetic analyses.
    Wortley AH; Scotland RW
    Syst Biol; 2006 Aug; 55(4):677-85. PubMed ID: 16969943
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimal Rates for Phylogenetic Inference and Experimental Design in the Era of Genome-Scale Data Sets.
    Dornburg A; Su Z; Townsend JP
    Syst Biol; 2019 Jan; 68(1):145-156. PubMed ID: 29939341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Escherichia coli molecular phylogeny using the incongruence length difference test.
    Lecointre G; Rachdi L; Darlu P; Denamur E
    Mol Biol Evol; 1998 Dec; 15(12):1685-95. PubMed ID: 9866203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Phylogenetic relationships among the Lorisoidea as indicated by craniodental morphology and mitochondrial sequence data.
    Masters JC; Boniotto M; Crovella S; Roos C; Pozzi L; Delpero M
    Am J Primatol; 2007 Jan; 69(1):6-15. PubMed ID: 17171677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Branch lengths and support: revisited.
    Morrison DA
    Syst Biol; 2003 Dec; 52(6):849-51. PubMed ID: 14668121
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Introduction. Statistical and computational challenges in molecular phylogenetics and evolution.
    Goldman N; Yang Z
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2008 Dec; 363(1512):3889-92. PubMed ID: 18852095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Tree disagreement: measuring and testing incongruence in phylogenies.
    Planet PJ
    J Biomed Inform; 2006 Feb; 39(1):86-102. PubMed ID: 16243006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Detecting phylogenetic incongruence using BIONJ: an improvement of the ILD test.
    Zelwer M; Daubin V
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2004 Dec; 33(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 15522796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia.
    Gatesy J; Baker RH; Hayashi C
    Syst Biol; 2004 Apr; 53(2):342-55. PubMed ID: 15205058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sampling properties of the bootstrap support in molecular phylogeny: influence of nonindependence among sites.
    Galtier N
    Syst Biol; 2004 Feb; 53(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 14965899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.