Table 14

Output of the comparison of Mafft against Probcons over Metazoa
Metazoa: Mafft_CodonDist_BioNJ - Probcons_CodonDist_BioNJ, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_CodonDist_FastME - Probcons_CodonDist_FastME, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_CodonDist_LST - Probcons_CodonDist_LST, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_Gap - Probcons_Gap, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_InducDist_BioNJ - Probcons_InducDist_BioNJ, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_InducDist_FastME - Probcons_InducDist_FastME, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_InducDist_LST - Probcons_InducDist_LST, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_Parsimony - Probcons_Parsimony, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_PhyML - Probcons_PhyML, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_RAxML - Probcons_RAxML, 59613 OGs
Metazoa: Mafft_RAxMLG - Probcons_RAxMLG, 59613 OGs
Mafft is strongly better than Probcons
Mafft - Probcons: -0.0390 +- 0.0017, n=655743

Sample output showing the selection of which methods to compare when summarizing results, Table 14. The difference of the Taxon measures is taken over corresponding pairs of trees. These corresponding pairs differ only in the components we want to compare. Furthermore, they will be computed over exactly the same population of OGs.


Gonnet BMC Bioinformatics 2012 13:148   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-148

Open Data