No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 15, 2026.
IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era
Bui Quang Minh, Heiko A Schmidt, Olga Chernomor and 4 more
Molecular Biology and Evolution · 2020 · CC BY
Abstract
IQ-TREE (http://www.iqtree.org, last accessed February 6, 2020) is a user-friendly and widely used software package for phylogenetic inference using maximum likelihood. Since the release of version 1 in 2014, we have continuously expanded IQ-TREE to integrate a plethora of new models of sequence evolution and efficient computational approaches of phylogenetic inference to deal with genomic data. Here, we describe notable features of IQ-TREE version 2 and highlight the key advantages over other software.
Full text
From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 15, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.
IQ-TREE is a widely used and open-source software package for phylogenetic inference using the maximum likelihood (ML) criterion. The high performance of IQ-TREE results from the efficient integration of novel phylogenetic methods that improve the three key steps in phylogenetic analysis: fast model selection via ModelFinder, an effective tree search algorithm, and a novel ultrafast bootstrap approximation. independently showed that the tree search algorithm in IQ-TREE exhibits good performance in terms of both computing times and likelihood maximization when compared with other popular ML phylogenetics software such as RAxML and PhyML. IQ-TREE also plays a vital role in the software ecosystem for biomedical research. For instance, it is an integral component of many popular open-source applications such as Galaxy, Nextstrain, OrthoFinder, and QIIME 2.
Since the release of IQ-TREE version 1.0 in 2014, we have continuously developed IQ-TREE to integrate a plethora of new evolutionary models and efficient methods for analyzing large phylogenomic data sets. Here, we present IQ-TREE version 2 and highlight the key new features and improvements. To demonstrate its performance and compare it with other software, we used a 2-GHz CPU server to analyze 2 large sequence alignments: a DNA alignment of 110 vertebrate species and 25,919 sites which we call the DNA-data set, and an amino acid alignment of 76 metazoan species and 49,388 sites which we call the AA-data set.
Time-Reversible Models of Sequence Evolution
IQ-TREE 2 supports more than 200 time-reversible evolutionary models, including all standard substitution models for DNA, protein, codon, binary, and multistate-morphological data. Rate heterogeneity across sites can be accommodated either by the discrete distribution with invariant sites or by a distribution-free rate model. Site-specific rates can be estimated by the empirical Bayesian method via the --rate option or by ML via the --mlrate option. These estimated site-specific rates can be useful for downstream analysis such as quantification of phylogenetic informativeness, signal, and noise. For single nucleotide polymorphism or morphological data, the absence of invariant sites can be accounted for by an ascertainment bias correction.
Moreover, IQ-TREE 2 offers a number of advanced models for phylogenomic data including partitioned models, mixture models, posterior-mean site frequency models, and heterotachy models. For allele-frequency data, IQ-TREE 2 implements polymorphism-aware models. With partitioned models, one can specify either a partition file (as in IQ-TREE 1) or a directory of single-locus alignments (a new feature in IQ-TREE 2). In the latter case, IQ-TREE 2 will load and concatenate all alignments within the directory, eliminating the need for users to manually perform this step. In addition to implementing existing mixture models, IQ-TREE 2 goes beyond the mixture models employed in PhyML-mixtures and RAxML-NG software, by allowing for user-defined mixture models using the “MIX{model1,…,modelk}” syntax. IQ-TREE 2 is also substantially faster than PhyML-mixtures. For example, optimization of the model parameters for the LG4X model on the AA-data set took 1.9 min in IQ-TREE 2, 3 min in RAxML-NG, and 17.6 min in PhyML-mixtures.
Because the aforementioned substitution models assume time reversibility, IQ-TREE 1 only enabled inference of unrooted trees. In IQ-TREE 2, we included non-time-reversible models (e.g., ), meaning that IQ-TREE 2 enables inference of rooted trees.
Nonreversible Substitution Models
IQ-TREE 2 allows users to reconstruct rooted trees using nonreversible models, a feature not available in most ML packages due to numerical and computational expense. We substantially revised the IQ-TREE code to overcome these obstacles. First, due to nonreversibility of the rate matrix, the naïve computation of the transition probability matrix, where is the branch length, is unstable due to complex eigenvalues of. Eigen-decomposition and scaling-squaring techniques, for example, as provided in the Eigen3 library remove the numerical problems. IQ-TREE 2 employs eigen-decomposition to diagonalize into its (complex) eigenvalues, eigenvectors and inverse eigenvectors, which are used to compute. If is not diagonalizable, then IQ-TREE 2 switches to the scaling-squaring technique to compute. The eigen-decomposition is fast but sometimes unstable, whereas the scaling-squaring is slow but stable. Second, IQ-TREE 2 uses a rooted tree data structure and an adjusted pruning algorithm for computing likelihoods of nonreversible models on rooted trees. Third, we adapted the hill climbing nearest neighbor interchange, part of the tree search heuristic in IQ-TREE to account for rooted trees. Fourth, we introduced a root search operation that moves the root to the neighboring branches (by default up to 2 branches away from the current root branch) and retains the rooting position with the highest likelihood. Users can increase this parameter (--root-dist option) to test for the position of the root across more or all branches.
Based on these improvements, we could efficiently implement 99 nonreversible DNA models known as Lie Markov models, the unrestricted model (UNREST) for DNA and—for the first time—the general nonreversible model for amino acid sequences that we call NONREV. For the DNA-data set, tree search under the general time-reversible model took 2.8 min using 4 CPU cores, whereas the UNREST model took 10.7 min. For the AA-data set tree search under the protein general time-reversible model took 2.52 h, whereas the NONREV model took 5.8 h. The implementation of nonreversible models in IQ-TREE 2 opens new avenues of evolutionary research.
Fast Likelihood Mapping Analysis
IQ-TREE 2 provides a fast and parallel implementation of the quartet likelihood mapping to visualize phylogenetic information in alignments or to study the relationships of taxon-groups in large data sets. To this end, IQ-TREE 2 evaluates the exact ML value of all relevant quartets. Application of the original implementation of quartet likelihood mapping in TREE-PUZZLE (i.e., with 10,000 random quartets and exact ML quartet evaluation) to the DNA-data set took 282 min, whereas the improved implementation in IQ-TREE 2 required only 1 min using one CPU core and 21 s using four cores. Similarly, analysis of the AA-data set took 99.5 h in TREE-PUZZLE, 17 min in IQ-TREE 2 with one CPU core, and 4.5 min using four cores. Together with the extended repertoire of sequence evolution models, likelihood mapping facilitates a thorough investigation of much larger sequence alignments.
New Options for Tree Search
IQ-TREE 2 allows users to perform a constrained tree search (-g option), such that the resulting ML tree will respect a set of user-defined splits, which may also contain polytomies. This option is helpful to enforce the monophyly of certain groups. A tree test (see below) can be performed to ensure that the constrained tree is not significantly worse than the unconstrained tree.
IQ-TREE 2 also provides a fast tree search (-fast option) using an algorithm resembling that implemented in FastTree2. Here, IQ-TREE 2 computes two starting trees using Maximum Parsimony and Neighbor-Joining, which are then optimized by the hill climbing nearest neighbor interchange moves. For our example DNA-data set, the default tree search took 27 min, whereas the fast IQ-TREE search and FastTree2 needed 82 and 85 s, respectively. For the AA-data set, the default tree search took 5.7 h, whereas the fast IQ-TREE search and the FastTree2 search took 13.9 and 4.3 min, respectively. The speed of FastTree2 was accomplished at the cost of producing substantially worse trees than RAxML, PhyML, and IQ-TREE.
IQ-TREE 2 also provides a --runs option, which conducts multiple independent tree searches, summarizes the resulting trees, and reports the tree(s) with the highest log-likelihood. This option is recommended for difficult data sets, for example, with many taxa and/or limited phylogenetic signal, to increase the probability that the true ML tree is found.
Systematically Accounting for Missing Data
Missing data—when some loci or sites are absent for some species—are almost unavoidable in phylogenomic data sets. In the presence of missing data, each species tree can be associated with a corresponding set of induced single-locus trees. For each locus, an induced tree is obtained from the species tree by removing species with unavailable sequences for that locus. Missing data can create phylogenetic terraces, where for two or more species trees the associated sets of induced single-locus trees are identical, leading to identical likelihoods under an edge-unlinked partitioned model.
IQ-TREE 2 employs the terraphast library to automatically report the inferred ML trees that reside on a terrace. If so, users are advised to gather more data or filter out gappy taxa/loci. Moreover, IQ-TREE 2 generalizes the terrace concept to partial terraces, where a subset of the induced single-locus trees is identical. IQ-TREE 2 exploits partial terraces to improve tree search under partitioned models and achieves up to 4.5- and 8-fold speedups compared with IQ-TREE 1 and RAxML, respectively.
Single-Locus Tree Inference
IQ-TREE 2 enables users to infer individual locus trees (-S option), which can be used for subsequent coalescent (e.g., ) or concordance analyses (e.g., ). Users need to specify either a partition file that delineates the borders between loci or a directory containing the individual locus alignments in individual files. In both cases, IQ-TREE 2 will perform separate model selection and tree searches for each locus, which are automatically scheduled on the k CPU cores. The loci are ranked according to their expected computational costs, where the costs are estimated as a product of the number of sequences, distinct site patterns, and character states (4 for DNA and 20 for protein). The k loci with highest costs will be assigned to one of the k cores. When a core has finished computation the next locus in the ranked list will be assigned to that core. This process continues until all computations are complete.
We compared our scheduling approach with the program ParGenes version 1.0.1, which uses RAxML-NG for tree search and a more sophisticated scheduling algorithm. For the DNA-data set, IQ-TREE 2 inferred 168 locus trees in 18.6 and 9.2 min using 2 and 4 CPU cores, respectively; whereas the same analysis in ParGenes took 9.17 and 5.98 min. For the AA-data set with 127 loci, IQ-TREE 2 took 2.05 and 1.05 h using 2 and 4 cores, respectively; whereas ParGenes needed 1.53 and 0.81 h. Therefore, IQ-TREE 2 shows a higher parallel efficiency (DNA: 101% and AA: 97.6%) than ParGenes (DNA: 76.7% and AA: 94.4%), but ParGenes needs less computational time. The upshot of this is that both programs are likely to perform similarly on very large data sets.
Fast Branch Tests
IQ-TREE 2 provides fast and parallel implementations for several existing branch tests including the approximate likelihood ratio test (aLRT), the Shimodaira–Hasegawa-like aLRT (SH-aLRT), and the aBayes test. The SH-aLRT is parallelized over the bootstrap samples to maximize load balance and efficiency. These tests can be performed on the reconstructed ML tree or a user-defined tree. For the DNA-data set, PhyML version 3.3.20190321 took 33.9 h to perform the SH-aLRT, whereas IQ-TREE 2 needed only 1.5 min (1,300-fold speedup). On the AA-data set, PhyML took 173.5 h to perform the SH-aLRT tests, whereas IQ-TREE 2 needed just 1.6 min (a greater than 2,000-fold speedup).
Fast Topology Tests
IQ-TREE 2 also provides fast and parallel implementations of existing tree topology tests including the Shimodaira–Hasegawa test, the approximately unbiased test, and the expected likelihood weight. Moreover, IQ-TREE 2 is well suited for partitioned models because it provides the site, gene, and gene-site bootstrap resampling schemes.
For the DNA-data set CONSEL, the original and unparallelized implementation of the approximately unbiased test, took 5 min to test 100 tree topologies, whereas IQ-TREE 2 took 1.8 min with one CPU core and 1.1 min with four CPU cores. For the AA-data set, CONSEL took 9.4 min and IQ-TREE 2 took 8.7 min with one CPU core and 2.4 min with four CPU cores. IQ-TREE provides added convenience by calculating site log-likelihoods itself, rather than relying on site log-likelihood output provided by other software.
Scalability with Large Data Sets
IQ-TREE 2 implements several features to facilitate the analysis of large data sets. It uses multithreading to speed up computations in a range of areas and can automatically determine the best number of threads for the computer at hand. IQ-TREE 2 also parallelizes the computation across cluster nodes using Message Passing Interface. IQ-TREE 2 periodically writes a compressed checkpoint file that enables resumption of an interrupted analysis. IQ-TREE 2 also provides a memory-saving mode, that is automatically invoked when the memory requirement exceeds the RAM size, and a safe mode (-safe option) to avoid numerical underflow for taxon-rich alignments (automatically invoked for data sets with >2,000 sequences).
We benchmarked the memory-saving mode, where the RAM consumption is reduced by half (-mem 0.5). For the DNA-data set, IQ-TREE 2 took 27 and 32.8 m (21% increase) under the full- and half-memory mode, respectively, whereas the same analysis needed 5.7 and 6.2 h (9% increase) for the AA-data set. This increase in computing times is insignificant compared with 50% saving in memory, which could otherwise be a bottleneck for very large data sets and mixture models requiring hundreds of GB of RAM.
Documentation, User Support, and Workshop Materials
An extensive user manual, quick start guide, tutorials, and command reference are available (http://www.iqtree.org/doc, last accessed February 6, 2020). We actively maintain a forum (https://groups.google.com/d/forum/iqtree, last accessed February 6, 2020) for user support, bug reports, and feature requests. We regularly teach IQ-TREE at the Workshop on Molecular Evolution (https://molevolworkshop.github.io, last accessed February 6, 2020), the Workshop on Virus Evolution and Molecular Epidemiology (https://rega.kuleuven.be/cev/veme-workshop/, last accessed February 6, 2020), and the Workshop on Phylogenomics (http://evomics.org, last accessed February 6, 2020). Most workshop materials are freely available at http://www.iqtree.org/workshop/ (last accessed February 6, 2020).
Supplementary Material
Supplementary data are available at Molecular Biology and Evolution online.
References 56
- 1.
- 2.
Anisimova M, Gascuel O. 2006 Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst Biol. 55(4):539–552.
Not in our library10.1080/10635150600755453
- 3.
Anisimova M, Gil M, Dufayard JF, Dessimoz C, Gascuel O. 2011 Survey of branch support methods demonstrates accuracy, power, and robustness of fast likelihood-based approximation schemes. Syst Biol. 60(5):685–699.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syr041
- 4.
Biczok R, Bozsoky P, Eisenmann P, Ernst J, Ribizel T, Scholz F, Trefzer A, Weber F, Hamann M, Stamatakis A. 2018 Two C plus plus libraries for counting trees on a phylogenetic terrace. Bioinformatics34:3399–3401.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/bty384
- 5.
Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F, et al 2019 Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 37(8):852–857.
Not in our library10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9
- 6.
Boussau B, Gouy M. 2006 Efficient likelihood computations with nonreversible models of evolution. Syst Biol. 55(5):756–768.
Not in our library10.1080/10635150600975218
- 7.
Chernomor O, Minh BQ, von Haeseler A. 2015 Consequences of common topological rearrangements for partition trees in phylogenomic inference. J Comput Biol. 22(12):1129–1142.
Not in our library10.1089/cmb.2015.0146
- 8.
Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. 2016 Terrace aware data structure for phylogenomic inference from supermatrices. Syst Biol. 65(6):997–1008.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syw037
- 9.
Crotty SM, Minh BQ, Bean NG, Holland BR, Tuke J, Jermiin LS, von Haeseler A. Forthcoming 2019 GHOST: recovering historical signal from heterotachously-evolved sequence alignments. Syst Biol.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syz051
- 10.
Dornburg A, Fisk JN, Tamagnan J, Townsend JP. 2016 PhyInformR: phylogenetic experimental design and phylogenomic data exploration in R. BMC Evol Biol. 16(1):262.
Not in our library10.1186/s12862-016-0837-3
- 11.
- 12.
Felsenstein J. 1981 Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences—a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 17(6):368–376.
Not in our library10.1007/bf01734359
- 13.
Felsenstein J. 2004 Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
Not in our library
- 14.
Fong JJ, Brown JM, Fujita MK, Boussau B. 2012 A phylogenomic approach to vertebrate phylogeny supports a turtle-archosaur affinity and a possible paraphyletic lissamphibia. PLoS One7(11):e48990.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0048990
- 15.
Gascuel O. 1997 BIONJ: an improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol Biol Evol. 14(7):685–695.
Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025808
- 16.
Grama A, Karypis G, Kumar V, Gupta A. 2003 Introduction to parallel computing. Harlow (UK): Pearson Education Limited.
Not in our library
- 17.
Gu X, Fu YX, Li WH. 1995 Maximum-likelihood-estimation of the heterogeneity of substitution rate among nucleotide sites. Mol Biol Evol. 12(4):546–557.
Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040235
- 18.
Guennebaud G, Jacob B, et al 2010 Eigen v3. Version 3. Available from: http://eigen.tuxfamily.org. Accessed February 6, 2020.
Not in our library
- 19.
Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. 2010 New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 59(3):307–321.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syq010
- 20.
Hadfield J, Megill C, Bell SM, Huddleston J, Potter B, Callender C, Sagulenko P, Bedford T, Neher RA. 2018 Nextstrain: real-time tracking of pathogen evolution. Bioinformatics34(23):4121–4123.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/bty407
- 21.
Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Le SV. 2018 UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol Biol Evol. 35(2):518–522.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msx281
- 22.
Izquierdo-Carrasco F, Gagneur J, Stamatakis A. 2012. Trading memory for running time in phylogenetic likelihood computations. Bioinformatics Conference. Vilamoura, Portugal.
Not in our library
- 23.
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. 2017 ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 14(6):587–589.
Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.4285
- 24.
Kozlov AM, Darriba D, Flouri T, Morel B, Stamatakis A. 2019 RAxML-NG: a fast, scalable, and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics35(21):4453–4455.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btz305
- 25.
Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SY, Guindon S. 2012 PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol. 29(6):1695–1701.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mss020
- 26.
Le SQ, Dang CC, Gascuel O. 2012 Modeling protein evolution with several amino acid replacement matrices depending on site rates. Mol Biol Evol. 29(10):2921–2936.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mss112
- 27.
Le SQ, Gascuel O. 2010 Accounting for solvent accessibility and secondary structure in protein phylogenetics is clearly beneficial. Syst Biol. 59(3):277–287.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syq002
- 28.
Le SQ, Lartillot N, Gascuel O. 2008 Phylogenetic mixture models for proteins. Philos Trans R Soc B363:3965–3976.
Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2008.0180
- 29.
Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme A-M. 2009 The phylogenetic handbook: a practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Not in our library
- 30.
Lewis PO. 2001 A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst Biol. 50(6):913–925.
Not in our library10.1080/106351501753462876
- 31.
Mayrose I, Graur D, Ben-Tal N, Pupko T. 2004 Comparison of site-specific rate-inference methods for protein sequences: empirical Bayesian methods are superior. Mol Biol Evol. 21(9):1781–1791.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msh194
- 32.
- 33.
Minh BQ, Nguyen MAT, von Haeseler A. 2013 Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap. Mol Biol Evol. 30(5):1188–1195.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mst024
- 34.
Mirarab S, Reaz R, Bayzid MS, Zimmermann T, Swenson MS, Warnow T. 2014 ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics30(17):i541–548.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btu462
- 35.
Moler C, Loan CV. 1978 Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix. SIAM Rev. 20(4):801–836.
Not in our library
- 36.
Morel B, Kozlov AM, Stamatakis A. 2019 ParGenes: a tool for massively parallel model selection and phylogenetic tree inference on thousands of genes. Bioinformatics35(10):1771–1773.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/bty839
- 37.
Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. 2015 IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 32(1):268–274.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msu300
- 38.
Norris JR. 1997 Markov chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Not in our library
- 39.
- 40.
Sanderson MJ, McMahon MM, Steel M. 2011 Terraces in phylogenetic tree space. Science333(6041):448–450.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1206357
- 41.
Schmidt HA, Strimmer K, Vingron M, von Haeseler A. 2002 TREE-PUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics18(3):502–504.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.502
- 42.
Schrempf D, Minh BQ, De Maio N, von Haeseler A, Kosiol C. 2016 Reversible polymorphism-aware phylogenetic models and their application to tree inference. J Theor Biol. 407:362–370.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.07.042
- 43.
Schrempf D, Minh BQ, von Haeseler A, Kosiol C. 2019 Polymorphism-aware species trees with advanced mutation models, bootstrap, and rate heterogeneity. Mol Biol Evol. 36(6):1294–1301.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msz043
- 44.
Shimodaira H. 2002 An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol. 51(3):492–508.
Not in our library10.1080/10635150290069913
- 45.
Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 1999 Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 16(8):1114–1116.
Not in our library
- 46.
Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 2001 CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics17(12):1246–1247.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1246
- 47.
Snir M, Otto SW, Huss-Lederman S, Walker DW, Dongarra J. 1998 MPI: the complete reference—the MPI core. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Not in our library
- 48.
Stamatakis A. 2014 RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics30(9):1312–1313.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033
- 49.
Strimmer K, Rambaut A. 2002 Inferring confidence sets of possibly misspecified gene trees. Proc R Soc Lond B269(1487):137–142.
Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2001.1862
- 50.
Strimmer K, von Haeseler A. 1997 Likelihood-mapping: a simple method to visualize phylogenetic content of a sequence alignment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94(13):6815–6819.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.94.13.6815
- 51.
Wang HC, Minh BQ, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2018 Modeling site heterogeneity with posterior mean site frequency profiles accelerates accurate phylogenomic estimation. Syst Biol. 67(2):216–235.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syx068
- 52.
Whelan NV, Kocot KM, Moroz TP, Mukherjee K, Williams P, Paulay G, Moroz LL, Halanych KM. 2017 Ctenophore relationships and their placement as the sister group to all other animals. Nat Ecol Evol. 1(11):1737–1746.
Not in our library10.1038/s41559-017-0331-3
- 53.
Woodhams MD, Fernandez-Sanchez J, Sumner JG. 2015 A new hierarchy of phylogenetic models consistent with heterogeneous substitution rates. Syst Biol. 64(4):638–650.
Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syv021
- 54.
Yang Z. 1994a Estimating the pattern of nucleotide substitution. J Mol Evol. 39(1):105–111.
Not in our library10.1007/bf00178256
- 55.
Yang Z. 1994b Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol. 39(3):306–314.
Not in our library10.1007/bf00160154
- 56.
Zhou XF, Shen XX, Hittinger CT, Rokas A. 2018 Evaluating fast maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic programs using empirical phylogenomic data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 35(2):486–503.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msx302
Cited by papers we hold 110
- IQ-TREE 3: phylogenomic inference software using complex evolutionary models · 2026No notice
- Oatk: a de novo assembly tool for complex plant organelle genomes · 2025No notice
- Species concept of golden flower camellias in China · 2025Not checked
- Multiple bursts of speciation in Madagascar’s endangered lemurs · 2025Not checked
- The genome of a sea spider corroborates a shared Hox cluster motif in arthropods with a reduced posterior tagma · 2025Not checked
- Генетическое разнообразие вируса лейкоза крупного рогатого скота и его распространение в районах Республики Дагестан · 2025Not checked
- Temporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic diversity in Central Brazil reveals evolutionary shifts among variants of concern during the pandemic · 2025Not checked
- Phenotypic variability and genome-wide association studies in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for phosphorus efficiency · 2025Not checked
- Discovery of novel non-retroviral endogenous viral elements reveals their long-term integration history in spiders · 2025Not checked
- Mechanisms and engineering of a miniature type V-N CRISPR-Cas12 effector enzyme · 2025Not checked
- A pan-genome of 69 Arabidopsis thaliana accessions reveals a conserved genome structure throughout the global species range · 2024No notice
- Prevalence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 in a large community surveillance study · 2024No notice
- Ongoing mpox outbreak in Kamituga, South Kivu province, associated with monkeypox virus of a novel Clade I sub-lineage, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2024 · 2024Corrected
- Complexity of avian evolution revealed by family-level genomes · 2024No notice
- Sustained human outbreak of a new MPXV clade I lineage in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo · 2024No notice
- Update on the proposed minimal standards for the use of genome data for the taxonomy of prokaryotes · 2024No notice
- Harnessing landrace diversity empowers wheat breeding · 2024No notice
- Bridge RNAs direct programmable recombination of target and donor DNA · 2024No notice
- Epidemiological data of an influenza A/H5N1 outbreak in elephant seals in Argentina indicates mammal-to-mammal transmission · 2024No notice
- Rapid expansion and international spread of M1UK in the post-pandemic UK upsurge of Streptococcus pyogenes · 2024No notice
and 90 more
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.