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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3447007)

  • 21. When is it safe to use an oversimplified substitution model in tree-making?
    Rzhetsky A; Sitnikova T
    Mol Biol Evol; 1996 Nov; 13(9):1255-65. PubMed ID: 8896378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny.
    Russo CA; Takezaki N; Nei M
    Mol Biol Evol; 1996 Mar; 13(3):525-36. PubMed ID: 8742641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I. Distantly related species.
    Tateno Y; Nei M; Tajima F
    J Mol Evol; 1982; 18(6):387-404. PubMed ID: 7175956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Twisted trees and inconsistency of tree estimation when gaps are treated as missing data - The impact of model mis-specification in distance corrections.
    McTavish EJ; Steel M; Holder MT
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2015 Dec; 93():289-95. PubMed ID: 26256643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Inconsistency of the maximum parsimony method when the rate of nucleotide substitution is constant.
    Takezaki N; Nei M
    J Mol Evol; 1994 Aug; 39(2):210-8. PubMed ID: 7932784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. On the uniqueness of the maximum parsimony tree for data with up to two substitutions: An extension of the classic Buneman theorem in phylogenetics.
    Fischer M
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2019 Aug; 137():127-137. PubMed ID: 30928353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Construction of linear invariants in phylogenetic inference.
    Fu YX; Li WH
    Math Biosci; 1992 May; 109(2):201-28. PubMed ID: 1600286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. On the best evolutionary rate for phylogenetic analysis.
    Yang Z
    Syst Biol; 1998 Mar; 47(1):125-33. PubMed ID: 12064232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. SPIn: model selection for phylogenetic mixtures via linear invariants.
    Kedzierska AM; Drton M; Guigó R; Casanellas M
    Mol Biol Evol; 2012 Mar; 29(3):929-37. PubMed ID: 22009060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Complete families of linear invariants for some stochastic models of sequence evolution, with and without the molecular clock assumption.
    Hendy MD; Penny D
    J Comput Biol; 1996; 3(1):19-31. PubMed ID: 8697236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Methods for computing the standard errors of branching points in an evolutionary tree and their application to molecular data from humans and apes.
    Nei M; Stephens JC; Saitou N
    Mol Biol Evol; 1985 Jan; 2(1):66-85. PubMed ID: 2897060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Analysis on the reconstruction accuracy of the Fitch method for inferring ancestral states.
    Yang J; Li J; Dong L; Grünewald S
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2011 Jan; 12():18. PubMed ID: 21226965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Maximum parsimony, substitution model, and probability phylogenetic trees.
    Weng JF; Thomas DA; Mareels I
    J Comput Biol; 2011 Jan; 18(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 20624099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Reconstructing evolution of sequences subject to recombination using parsimony.
    Hein J
    Math Biosci; 1990 Mar; 98(2):185-200. PubMed ID: 2134501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Sequence length bounds for resolving a deep phylogenetic divergence.
    Fischer M; Steel M
    J Theor Biol; 2009 Jan; 256(2):247-52. PubMed ID: 18955066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluating the relationship between evolutionary divergence and phylogenetic accuracy in AFLP data sets.
    García-Pereira MJ; Caballero A; Quesada H
    Mol Biol Evol; 2010 May; 27(5):988-1000. PubMed ID: 20026482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters.
    Chang JT
    Math Biosci; 1996 Jun; 134(2):189-215. PubMed ID: 8664540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of phylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequence data.
    Sourdis J; Krimbas C
    Mol Biol Evol; 1987 Mar; 4(2):159-66. PubMed ID: 3447006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data.
    Rzhetsky A; Nei M
    Mol Biol Evol; 1995 Jan; 12(1):131-51. PubMed ID: 7877488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of the accuracies of several phylogenetic methods using protein and DNA sequences.
    Hall BG
    Mol Biol Evol; 2005 Mar; 22(3):792-802. PubMed ID: 15590907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.