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

dc.contributor.affiliationImperial College London - Tan, Ge
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Zurich - Gil, Manuel
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Helsinki - Löytynoja, Ari P.
dc.contributor.affiliationEuropean Bioinformatics Institute - Goldman, Nick
dc.contributor.affiliationEuropean Bioinformatics Institute - Dessimoz, Christophe
dc.contributor.authorTan, Ge
dc.contributor.authorGil, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorLöytynoja, Ari P.
dc.contributor.authorGoldman, Nick
dc.contributor.authorDessimoz, Christophe
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-24T15:19:14Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-31
dc.date.issued2015-12-31
dc.descriptionMultiple 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. 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. We have done this and the results are entirely opposed to Boyce et al.'s findings.
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4r5b8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hydatakatalogi-test-24.it.helsinki.fi/handle/123456789/10469
dc.rightsOpen
dc.rights.licensecc-zero
dc.subjectguide tree
dc.subjectsequence alignment
dc.subjectMSA
dc.titleData from: Simple chained guide trees give poorer multiple sequence alignments than inferred trees in simulation and phylogenetic benchmarks
dc.typedataset
dc.typedataset
Zenodo


: