Mind the gaps: evidence of bias in estimates of multiple sequence alignments.

By T. Golubchik, Michael J. Wise, Simon Easteal, Lars S. Jermiin. 2007

128 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Molecular Biology

How researchers see this paper

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

In Molecular Biology

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

Citations in the corpus

• MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability (2013, background): “Because of its high performance (Nuin et al. 2006; Golubchik et al. 2007; Dessimoz and Gil 2010; Letsch et al. 2010; Sahraeian and Yoon 2011; Sievers et al. 2011), MAFFT is becoming popular in recent years.”
• Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program (2008, background): “Recent benchmark studies under various conditions [26–30] consistently concluded that MAFFT is one of the best choices.”
• Decapod phylogenetics and molecular evolution (2009, unknown): “These programs produce more accurate alignments than ClustalW with increasing evolutionary distance (e.g., MAFFT, Nuin et al. 2006) or when gaps are present (indels) in the resulting alignment of sequence data (e.g., DIALIGN-T and MAFFT, Golubchik et al. 2007).”