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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32191313)

  • 1. Relative Model Fit Does Not Predict Topological Accuracy in Single-Gene Protein Phylogenetics.
    Spielman SJ
    Mol Biol Evol; 2020 Jul; 37(7):2110-2123. PubMed ID: 32191313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An amino acid substitution-selection model adjusts residue fitness to improve phylogenetic estimation.
    Wang HC; Susko E; Roger AJ
    Mol Biol Evol; 2014 Apr; 31(4):779-92. PubMed ID: 24441033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accounting for gene rate heterogeneity in phylogenetic inference.
    Bevan RB; Bryant D; Lang BF
    Syst Biol; 2007 Apr; 56(2):194-205. PubMed ID: 17464878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Detection of implausible phylogenetic inferences using posterior predictive assessment of model fit.
    Brown JM
    Syst Biol; 2014 May; 63(3):334-48. PubMed ID: 24415681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Does choice in model selection affect maximum likelihood analysis?
    Ripplinger J; Sullivan J
    Syst Biol; 2008 Feb; 57(1):76-85. PubMed ID: 18275003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does the choice of nucleotide substitution models matter topologically?
    Hoff M; Orf S; Riehm B; Darriba D; Stamatakis A
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Mar; 17():143. PubMed ID: 27009141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Relative Evolutionary Rates in Proteins Are Largely Insensitive to the Substitution Model.
    Spielman SJ; Kosakovsky Pond SL
    Mol Biol Evol; 2018 Sep; 35(9):2307-2317. PubMed ID: 29924340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Model Choice, Missing Data, and Taxon Sampling Impact Phylogenomic Inference of Deep Basidiomycota Relationships.
    Prasanna AN; Gerber D; Kijpornyongpan T; Aime MC; Doyle VP; Nagy LG
    Syst Biol; 2020 Jan; 69(1):17-37. PubMed ID: 31062852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Testing adequacy for DNA substitution models.
    Chen W; Kenney T; Bielawski J; Gu H
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Jun; 20(1):349. PubMed ID: 31221105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Relative model selection of evolutionary substitution models can be sensitive to multiple sequence alignment uncertainty.
    Spielman SJ; Miraglia ML
    BMC Ecol Evol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):214. PubMed ID: 34844571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Using RAxML to Infer Phylogenies.
    Stamatakis A
    Curr Protoc Bioinformatics; 2015 Sep; 51():6.14.1-6.14.14. PubMed ID: 26334924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Modelling heterotachy in phylogenetic inference by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo.
    Pagel M; Meade A
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2008 Dec; 363(1512):3955-64. PubMed ID: 18852097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Relative Importance of Modeling Site Pattern Heterogeneity Versus Partition-Wise Heterotachy in Phylogenomic Inference.
    Wang HC; Susko E; Roger AJ
    Syst Biol; 2019 Nov; 68(6):1003-1019. PubMed ID: 31140564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. More on the Best Evolutionary Rate for Phylogenetic Analysis.
    Klopfstein S; Massingham T; Goldman N
    Syst Biol; 2017 Sep; 66(5):769-785. PubMed ID: 28595363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating the Performance of Probabilistic Algorithms for Phylogenetic Analysis of Big Morphological Datasets: A Simulation Study.
    Vernygora OV; Simões TR; Campbell EO
    Syst Biol; 2020 Nov; 69(6):1088-1105. PubMed ID: 32191335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Model adequacy tests for probabilistic models of chromosome-number evolution.
    Rice A; Mayrose I
    New Phytol; 2021 Mar; 229(6):3602-3613. PubMed ID: 33226654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How Well Does Your Phylogenetic Model Fit Your Data?
    A Shepherd D; Klaere S
    Syst Biol; 2019 Jan; 68(1):157-167. PubMed ID: 30329125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. ModelTeller: Model Selection for Optimal Phylogenetic Reconstruction Using Machine Learning.
    Abadi S; Avram O; Rosset S; Pupko T; Mayrose I
    Mol Biol Evol; 2020 Nov; 37(11):3338-3352. PubMed ID: 32585030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating the Effect of Competition on Trait Evolution Using Maximum Likelihood Inference.
    Drury J; Clavel J; Manceau M; Morlon H
    Syst Biol; 2016 Jul; 65(4):700-10. PubMed ID: 26966005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Maximum likelihood estimates of species trees: how accuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design.
    McCormack JE; Huang H; Knowles LL
    Syst Biol; 2009 Oct; 58(5):501-8. PubMed ID: 20525604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.