English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Multiple sequence aligners typically work by progressively aligning the most closely related sequences or group of sequences according to guide trees. In PNAS, Boyce et al. (1) report that alignments reconstructed using simple chained trees (i.e., comb-like topologies) with random leaf assignment performed better in protein structure-based benchmarks than those reconstructed using phylogenies estimated from the data as guide trees. The authors state that this result could turn decades of research in the field on its head. In light of this statement, it is important to check immediately whether their result holds under evolutionary criteria: recovery of homologous sequence residues and inference of phylogenetic trees from the alignments (2). We have done this and the results are entirely opposed to Boyce et al.’s findings (1). Simulation entails simplifying assumptions, but …

Simple chained guide trees give poorer multiple sequence alignments than inferred trees in simulation and phylogenetic benchmarks