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.
114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34911213)
1. Semi-strict supertrees. Goloboff PA; Pol D Cladistics; 2002 Oct; 18(5):514-525. PubMed ID: 34911213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Problems with supertrees based on the subtree prune-and-regraft distance, with comments on majority rule supertrees. Goloboff PA; Szumik CA Cladistics; 2016 Feb; 32(1):82-89. PubMed ID: 34732022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Eulenstein O; Chen D; Burleigh JG; Fernández-Baca D; Sanderson MJ Syst Biol; 2004 Apr; 53(2):299-308. PubMed ID: 15205054 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. PhySIC_IST: cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees. Scornavacca C; Berry V; Lefort V; Douzery EJ; Ranwez V BMC Bioinformatics; 2008 Oct; 9():413. PubMed ID: 18834542 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Bad Clade Deletion Supertrees: A Fast and Accurate Supertree Algorithm. Fleischauer M; Böcker S Mol Biol Evol; 2017 Sep; 34(9):2408-2421. PubMed ID: 28873954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Bininda-Emonds OR Syst Biol; 2003 Dec; 52(6):839-48. PubMed ID: 14668120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. COSPEDTree: COuplet Supertree by Equivalence Partitioning of Taxa Set and DAG Formation. Bhattacharyya S; Mukherjee J IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2015; 12(3):590-603. PubMed ID: 26357270 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparative performance of supertree algorithms in large data sets using the soapberry family (Sapindaceae) as a case study. Buerki S; Forest F; Salamin N; Alvarez N Syst Biol; 2011 Jan; 60(1):32-44. PubMed ID: 21068445 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Testing the agreement of trees with internal labels. Fernández-Baca D; Liu L Algorithms Mol Biol; 2021 Dec; 16(1):22. PubMed ID: 34863219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The supertree tool kit. Davis KE; Hill J BMC Res Notes; 2010 Apr; 3():95. PubMed ID: 20377857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. L.U.St: a tool for approximated maximum likelihood supertree reconstruction. Akanni WA; Creevey CJ; Wilkinson M; Pisani D BMC Bioinformatics; 2014 Jun; 15():183. PubMed ID: 24925766 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reconstructing (super)trees from data sets with missing distances: not all is lost. Kettleborough G; Dicks J; Roberts IN; Huber KT Mol Biol Evol; 2015 Jun; 32(6):1628-42. PubMed ID: 25657329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Imputing supertrees and supernetworks from quartets. Holland B; Conner G; Huber K; Moulton V Syst Biol; 2007 Feb; 56(1):57-67. PubMed ID: 17366137 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Fast local search for unrooted Robinson-Foulds supertrees. Chaudhary R; Burleigh JG; Fernández-Baca D IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2012; 9(4):1004-13. PubMed ID: 22431553 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]