A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics

By David Bryant. Bioconsensus, 2001

310 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Pruning Rogue Taxa Improves Phylogenetic Accuracy: An Efficient Algorithm and Webservice (2012, methodology): “We also make available a freely accessible webservice”
NetMHCpan, a Method for Quantitative Predictions of Peptide Binding to Any HLA-A and -B Locus Protein of Known Sequence (2007, methodology): “The set of input trees were summarized in the form of a ‘‘greedy’’ consensus tree using proprietary software [49].”
Dendroscope 3: an interactive tool for rooted phylogenetic trees and networks. (2012, methodology): “As already mentioned, the program provides a choice of algorithms for computing consensus trees and consensus networks from rooted phylogenetic trees, such as the strict, majority, and loose consensus (Bryant 2003), as well as the lowest stable ancestor (LSA) consensus (Huson 2009).”
TreeDyn: towards dynamic graphics and annotations for analyses of trees (2006, methodology): “Several approaches are now available from the "simple" consensus tree [34] to the visualization of a "tree space" using multi-dimensional scaling based on a tree-to-tree distance matrix (Tree Set, [13,35]) or to systems allowing detailed structural comparisons between trees of up to 100,000 nodes (T”