4.4 Article

PhySpeTree: an automated pipeline for reconstructing phylogenetic species trees

期刊

BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12862-019-1541-x

关键词

Species tree; Automatic construction; Pipeline

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019SCU12062]
  2. National 973 Projects [2015CB755702, NSFC31671455]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Phylogenetic species trees are widely used in inferring evolutionary relationships. Existing software and algorithms mainly focus on phylogenetic inference. However, less attention has been paid to intermediate steps, such as processing extremely large sequences and preparing configure files to connect multiple software. When the species number is large, the intermediate steps become a bottleneck that may seriously affect the efficiency of tree building. Results Here, we present an easy-to-use pipeline named PhySpeTree to facilitate the reconstruction of species trees across bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic organisms. Users need only to input the abbreviations of species names; PhySpeTree prepares complex configure files for different software, then automatically downloads genomic data, cleans sequences, and builds trees. PhySpeTree allows users to perform critical steps such as sequence alignment and tree construction by adjusting advanced options. PhySpeTree provides two parallel pipelines based on concatenated highly conserved proteins and small subunit ribosomal RNA sequences, respectively. Accessory modules, such as those for inserting new species, generating visualization configurations, and combining trees, are distributed along with PhySpeTree. Conclusions Together with accessory modules, PhySpeTree significantly simplifies tree reconstruction. PhySpeTree is implemented in Python running on modern operating systems (Linux, macOS, and Windows). The source code is freely available with detailed documentation (https://github.com/yangfangs/physpetools).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据