z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Concatenation versus coalescence versus “concatalescence”
Author(s) -
John Gatesy,
Mark S. Springer
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
proceedings of the national academy of sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.011
H-Index - 771
eISSN - 1091-6490
pISSN - 0027-8424
DOI - 10.1073/pnas.1221121110
Subject(s) - concatenation (mathematics) , computational biology , biology , computer science , combinatorics , mathematics
By using coalescence analyses of published genomic data (447 genes, 36 mammals), Song et al. (1) concluded that a recent mammalian phylogeny published in Science (2) is inadequate because of “insufficient” data (26 genes, 35,603 bp, 164 mammals), and that “incongruence introduced by concatenation methods is a major cause of long-standing uncertainty in the phylogeny of eutherian mammals.” We instead argue that Song et al.’s approach is flawed.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom