Class of multiple sequence alignment algorithm affects genomic analysis.

By Benjamin P. Blackburne, Simon Whelan. 2013

76 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Genetics, Molecular Biology, Paleontology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

1. Daron M. Standley
2. Kazutaka Katoh
3. B. Faircloth
4. Steven Kelly
5. David M. Emms
6. Robert C. Edgar
7. Kathryn T Picard
8. Zhang Zhang

In Molecular Biology

1. Daron M. Standley
2. Kazutaka Katoh
3. B. Faircloth
4. Robert C. Edgar
5. Steven Kelly
6. David M. Emms
7. Erik S. Wright
8. Kazunori D. Yamada

In Paleontology

1. Daron M. Standley
2. Kazutaka Katoh

Citations in the corpus

• MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability (2013, background): “According to a recent comparative study based on the MetAl metric (Blackburne and Whelan 2012a, 2012b), there are two significantly different classes of MSA methods, similarity-based methods and evolution-based methods.”
• A simple method to control over-alignment in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program (2016, methodology): “According to Blackburne and Whelan (2012a), MSA methods can be classified into two types, similarity-based ones and evolution-based ones.”