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

Since the initial work of Jukes and Cantor (1969), a number of procedures have been developed to estimate the expected number of nucleotide substitutions corresponding to a given observed level of nucleotide differentiation assuming particular evolutionary models. Unlike the proportion of different sites, the expected number of substitutions that would have occurred grows linearly with time and therefore has had great appeal as an evolutionary distance. Recently, however, a number of authors have tried to develop improved statistical approaches for generating and evaluating evolutionary distances (Schöniger and von Haeseler 1993; Goldstein and Polock 1994; Tajima and Takezaki 1994). These studies clearly show that the estimated number of nucleotide substitutions is generally not the best estimator for use in reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships. The reason for this is that there is often a large error associated with the estimation of this number. Therefore, even though its expectation is correct (i.e., on average the expected number of substitutions is proportional to time--but see Tajima 1993), it is not expected to be as useful as estimators designed to have a lower variance.

A comparison of two methods for constructing evolutionary distances from a weighted contribution of transition and transversion differences.