CVTree for 16S rRNA: Constructing Taxonomy-Compatible All-Species Living Tree Effectively and Efficiently

Guang-Hong Zuo; Xiao-Yang Zhi; Yi-Fei Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

CVTree for 16S rRNA: Constructing Taxonomy-Compatible All-Species Living Tree Effectively and Efficiently

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the alignment-free CVTree method builds a taxonomy-compatible 16S rRNA tree for 20,286 type-strain sequences one to three orders of magnitude faster than multiple-sequence-alignment pipelines, with equal or better…

desk verdict Useful speed benchmark for alignment-free 16S phylogenetics, but the accuracy claim rests on a partly circular taxonomy and an unpublished metric—peer-review worthy, but the 'outperforms MSA' phrase needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07227 v1 pith:PT6MRMHT submitted 2025-05-12 q-bio.PE physics.bio-ph

Yi-Fei Lu , Xiao-Yang Zhi , Guang-Hong Zuo This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.PEphysics.bio-ph

keywords CVTree16SrRNAalignment-freephylogeneticsk-mercompositiontaxonomycongruenceentropyreductionprokaryoticphylogenymultiplesequencealignment

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the alignment-free CVTree method, originally designed for whole-genome phylogeny, works just as well on the 16S rRNA gene that anchors microbial taxonomy. Using 20,286 type-strain sequences, it builds a prokaryotic tree that cleanly separates Bacteria from Archaea and recovers most named phyla, classes, orders, families, and genera. Compared with three multiple-sequence-alignment pipelines, CVTree runs one to three orders of magnitude faster while scoring equal or better on an entropy-based measure of tree–taxonomy agreement. If these results hold, routine large-scale taxonomic updates and placement of new strains could proceed without the alignment bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composition vector: each 16S rRNA sequence is reduced to a vector counting k-mers of length $k$ ($k=6$ for one variant, $k=7$ for InterList), and the pairwise dissimilarity matrix is formed from the angles between these vectors; neighbor-joining then builds the tree. Because no multiple alignment is computed, the expensive per-pair alignment step disappears, which is the source of the speed advantage. The evaluation machinery is the ratio of entropy reduction, $\Delta H$, which compares how much the tree's clade partition lowers Shannon entropy relative to the taxonomy's partition at each rank; values lie in $[0,1]$, with $\Delta H=1$ meaning perfect monophyly of all taxa at that rank.

What would settle it

Score the same trees against a taxonomy built entirely from whole-genome data rather than from 16S rRNA alignments; if CVTree's $\Delta H$ values fall below those of the alignment-based pipelines at phylum through genus ranks, the reported accuracy is largely an artifact of the shared sequence source. A complementary check is to simulate sequences along a known model tree and compare branch recovery rates between CVTree and the alignment pipelines on the simulated data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that CVTree, comparing k-mer composition vectors instead of aligned positions, produces a 16S rRNA tree for essentially all named prokaryotic species that is as consistent with accepted taxonomy as trees built with multiple-sequence-alignment programs followed by FastTree, and does so 10–1000 times faster. The paper quantifies consistency as the ratio of entropy reduction $\Delta H$ between the tree's clade partition and the taxonomy's partition; all methods reach exactly $\Delta H=1$ at the domain rank, and each declines to about $0.6$ at the species rank. At phylum rank the two CVTree variants score slightly higher than the alignment pipelines, and they lose less accuracy as the dataset grows from 1,000 to 16,000 sequences. The conclusion is that alignment-free CVTree is a valid, scalable alternative to alignment-based pipelines for single-gene phylogenetic and taxonomic studies, not only for whole-genome analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the taxonomy used to score the trees is an independent gold standard, but that taxonomy and its reference tree are themselves constructed largely from 16S rRNA alignments, so part of the measured agreement may be circular rather than evidence that CVTree recovers true evolutionary history.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Microbial taxonomists can regenerate a reference tree for tens of thousands of type-strain sequences in hours rather than days, since CVTree skips alignment entirely.
The $\Delta H$ ratio gives a rank-by-rank, method-independent score for tree–taxonomy congruence, replacing ad hoc counts of monophyletic groups.
Because the neighbor-joining step costs $O(n^3)$, the speed advantage is largest at moderate dataset sizes and will shrink when datasets approach millions of sequences.
CVTree's stability at phylum rank under subsampling suggests it can serve as a fallback when alignment pipelines fail on very large or uneven datasets.
The same k-mer protocol transfers to other marker genes with only the k-mer length re-tuned, so the method is not tied to 16S rRNA.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The congruence metric is only as independent as the taxonomy it compares against: that taxonomy and its reference tree are themselves built from 16S rRNA alignments, so part of the agreement CVTree reports may be inherited from shared sequence data rather than independently confirmed.
A stronger test of the paper's accuracy claim would score the trees against a taxonomy derived from whole-genome data rather than from 16S rRNA alignments; if CVTree's $\Delta H$ drops below the alignment pipelines at phylum through genus ranks, the reported 'outperformance' would largely disappear.
The $\Delta H$ metric could be inverted to choose the optimal k-mer length for a given gene, by maximizing entropy reduction instead of using the paper's heuristic length-based rule.
Applying CVTree to 23S rRNA or concatenated ribosomal protein genes might offer an alignment-free cross-check of deep prokaryotic phylogeny, though those genes are longer and would increase the k-mer vector dimension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here’s the quick take: this is a solid, useful benchmark paper showing CVTree (alignment-free k-mer) can build all-species 16S trees from LTPs2024 at one to three orders of magnitude lower compute cost than MSA pipelines, with comparable taxonomic congruence at most ranks. The speed result is believable and likely robust. The accuracy claim – “even outperforming some MSA methods” – is thinner than the abstract suggests, because the evaluation metric and the gold-standard taxonomy are both tied to 16S rRNA and one is from the authors’ own unpublished tool.

The genuinely new content is the scale: applying two CVTree variants to ~20,000 16S sequences from LTPs2024, with careful subsampling, replicated runs, and runtime scaling. The experimental design is largely fair: same input sequences, same tree builder for the MSA pipelines, default parameters except where ClustalO needed extra iterations (disclosed), and real wall-clock time. The authors also provide code (CVTree and CLTree on GitHub), which helps reproducibility.

Soft spots, in rough order of importance. First, the principal accuracy metric is CLTree’s entropy-reduction ratio, referenced only as “In Preparation” (ref 44) from the same group. That makes the headline comparison hard to audit. Second, the taxonomy used as ground truth is not independent of the sequences. LTP’s classification and reference tree are themselves built from 16S/23S rRNA alignments. So a high ∆H score may largely measure how well CVTree recovers a classification that was already derived from the same molecular marker. That does not necessarily bias CVTree against MSA methods – both use the same 16S data – but it undercuts the broader claim of general phylogenetic accuracy. A genome-based benchmark (e.g., GTDB) or a concatenated-protein tree would strengthen it. Third, the statistical language is loose: the text says the six methods are “without statistically significant disparities” yet later claims CVTree is “statistically superior” at phylum rank, with no visible test statistics or p-values. The subsampling boxes are suggestive, but not a formal test. Fourth, the performance advantage is most pronounced at phylum/class ranks; at species rank all methods degrade to ~0.6 ∆H, and CVTree is not better. The paper could be more upfront about that.

Overall, this is worth sending to peer review. The speed result alone is a useful data point, and the benchmark is reproducible enough to serve as a reference for alignment-free vs MSA scaling. The authors need to publish CLTree, add statistical tests, and either add a genome-based validation or temper the “outperforms” claim. I’d cite this for the runtime comparison, and I’d want to see the revised version before relying on the accuracy conclusions.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies two alignment-free CVTree variants (InterList and Hao) to the 20,286 16S rRNA sequences of the LTPs2024 dataset, constructs a comprehensive prokaryotic tree, and compares it with trees built by three MSA-based pipelines (MAFFT, Muscle, and ClustalO plus FastTree) and with the LTP reference tree. Taxonomic congruence is quantified with a Shannon-entropy ratio defined in the CLTree software, and computational efficiency is measured by wall-clock time across dataset sizes. The central claims are that CVTree is 1-3 orders of magnitude faster than the MSA pipelines and that it maintains high consistency with established taxonomy, matching or occasionally outperforming the MSA methods.

Significance. If these claims hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: an alignment-free, scalable method that recovers taxonomy-compatible trees from single-gene data would lower the computational barrier for all-species phylogenetic analyses. The study has concrete strengths: all methods are run on the same input sequences, the same tree-building step is used where feasible, subsampling is repeated ten times, and the CVTree software is publicly available. However, the accuracy benchmark depends on an unpublished metric (CLTree, reference [44]) and on a taxonomic ground truth that is largely built from 16S/23S rRNA itself, so the headline 'outperforms MSA' claim is not yet supported at the level of general phylogenetic accuracy. The speed advantage is credible and well illustrated, but the accuracy comparison needs stronger validation or more cautious language.

major comments (4)

[Materials and Methods, 'Evaluate Tree by Taxonomy'] The evaluation metric and the ground truth are not independent of the test sequences. The LTP taxonomy and its reference tree are constructed from 16S and 23S rRNA alignments (references [11], [34]), and the CLTree metric (reference [44]) is an unpublished tool from the same group. The statement that taxonomy provides 'a more independent information' is therefore unsupported. Since the taxonomy is itself partly derived from 16S rRNA, a high entropy-reduction ratio may simply reflect recovery of a classification built from the same marker, not general phylogenetic accuracy. To substantiate the 'outperforms MSA' claim, I ask for at least one of the following: (a) a comparison against a genome-based taxonomy such as GTDB, restricted to taxa with genome representatives; (b) an independent tree-distance comparison (for example Robinson-Foulds or similar) between trees built by the different methods on the same data; or (c) a complete derivation and validation of the CLTree metric in a supplement or preprint. At minimum, the wording should be changed from 'phylogenetic accuracy' to 'consistency with the LTP taxonomy.'
[Materials and Methods, 'Phylogenetic Tree based on Alignment methods', and 'Scaling Effect on Taxonomy-Compatible'] The comparison protocol is inconsistent for ClustalO. For the full LTPs2024 dataset, the default parameters 'failed to produce reasonable results' and two additional iterations were used, while in the subsampling analysis ClustalO was run with default parameters because of time constraints. The main accuracy comparison and the scaling comparison therefore use different parameter settings for the same method. This undermines the conclusion that 'CVTree outperforms some MSA methods,' since the outperformance could reflect differential parameter choices rather than the algorithm itself. Please run ClustalO with the same number of iterations at all dataset sizes, or report both settings explicitly and temper the comparative claim if the results differ.
[Results and Discussion, 'CVTree is Taxonomy-Compatible'] The text is internally contradictory about statistical significance. It first states that the six methodologies 'demonstrated comparable performance without statistically significant disparities,' then states that 'CVTree implementations demonstrated statistically superior performance at phylum-rank classification.' No statistical test, error bar, or confidence interval is reported for the full-dataset comparison (Figure 2 has no error bars). Please specify the test used, report effect sizes and confidence intervals, and make the language consistent with the evidence.
[Results and Discussion, 'CVTree is much more Efficient'] The claim that 'Both FastTree and CVTree employ the neighbor-joining method [52]' is incorrect: FastTree uses a heuristic approximate maximum-likelihood approach, not neighbor-joining, and its complexity is not O(n^3). The explanation that the time differences converge because all five methods share the same O(n^3) tree-building bottleneck is therefore unsupported. Please correct the description of FastTree and either replace the complexity argument with measured scaling behavior or remove it.

minor comments (5)

[Materials and Methods, 'Phylogenetic Tree based on Alignment methods'] There is a typo in 'CLASTALserial'; it should be 'CLUSTAL'. Also, the notation '∆? ~0.5' is undefined; please define the entropy-reduction ratio at first use and state what value is considered 'reasonable.'
[Materials and Methods, 'Phylogenetic Tree by CVTree'] The formula for choosing k in the Hao method appears as '???? < ? < ???? + 2' and is unreadable. Please typeset the criterion properly, for example using L, the average sequence length, and the alphabet size q.
[Table 1 caption] The caption says 'with multiple genomes' but the table counts species with multiple sequences in the 16S rRNA dataset; please clarify the terminology and state whether 'unique genome' means 'unique sequence.'
[Supporting data] The manuscript refers to Data S1 and Data S2 but does not state how to access them. Please list these as supplementary files or provide repository links.
[Conclusion] The sentence 'CVTreematchedtheperformanceofthetop-tierMSAmethod,Muscle, andexceeded it in some metrics' is written without spaces and should be polished; more substantively, it overstates the evidence given that the only accuracy metric is the CLTree entropy ratio.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No constructional circularity; the only caveat is that the LTP taxonomy used as the reference is itself 16S/23S-rRNA-derived, which weakens benchmark independence but does not reduce any derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) speed and (ii) taxonomic compatibility. Neither is equivalent to an input by construction. CVTree builds k-mer frequency vectors directly from 16S rRNA sequences with fixed k values (k=6 for Hao, k=7 for InterList) chosen from prior work, not fitted to the taxonomy labels. The speed comparison is a measured wall-clock time averaged over ten replicates and is independent of the entropy metric. The taxonomic-compatibility metric delta-H is defined and derived in the Methods of this paper (clade-induced partitions refine taxonomy-based divisions), so the CLTree citation (ref 44, 'In Preparation') is only a software pointer, not the source of the result. The one genuine weakness is that the LTP taxonomy and its reference tree are built largely from 16S/23S rRNA alignments (refs 11, 34), so the paper's statement that taxonomy provides 'a more independent information' overstates the independence of the benchmark. This is a validation-contamination concern, not an equation-level circularity: none of the reported ratios or trees are statistically forced by the inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central benchmark rests on the choice of k, the unpublished CLTree metric, and the assumption that the LTP taxonomy is an independent gold standard. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

k-mer length k for Hao method = 6
Set by the rule k > log4(L) and k < log4(L)+2 with L the average 16S length, from the authors' prior work; not fitted to the taxonomy.
k-mer length k for InterList method = 7
Chosen to be slightly larger than the Hao k, per the CVTree manual and prior work; a method parameter, not fitted to the benchmark.
ClustalO extra iterations = 2 additional iterations
Added after default parameters produced ΔH around 0.5; a post hoc efficiency-accuracy trade-off adjustment.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The LTP taxonomy is a valid independent ground truth for phylogenetic accuracy.
Used throughout CLTree evaluation; actually the taxonomy is constructed from 16S rRNA, so it is not fully independent.
domain assumption Shannon entropy reduction ratio ΔH correctly ranks phylogenetic methods by taxonomic congruence.
The CLTree definition is asserted and 'mathematically demonstrated' but the demonstration is not shown in this paper; ref 44 is unpublished.
standard math Neighbor-joining recovers a reasonable phylogeny from CVTree distances.
Assumed by both CVTree and FastTree; a standard phylogenetic method.
domain assumption LTPs2024 sequence labels and taxonomy annotations are correct.
The analysis relies on curated type-strain labels; the authors did manual curation for missing species designations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CVTree for 16S rRNA: Constructing Taxonomy-Compatible All-Species Living Tree Effectively and Efficiently." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PT6MRMHT

@misc{pith2026250507227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CVTree for 16S rRNA: Constructing Taxonomy-Compatible All-Species Living Tree Effectively and Efficiently},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PT6MRMHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07227}
}

read the original abstract

The Composition Vector Tree (CVTree) method, developed under the leadership of Professor Hao Bailin, is an alignment-free algorithm for constructing phylogenetic trees. Although initially designed for studying prokaryotic evolution based on whole-genome, it has demonstrated broad applicability across diverse biological systems and gene sequences. In this study, we employed two methods, InterList and Hao, of CVTree to investigate the phylogeny and taxonomy of prokaryote based on the 16S rRNA sequences from All-Species Living Tree Project. We have established a comprehensive phylogenetic tree that incorporates the majority of species documented in human scientific knowledge and compared it with the taxonomy of prokaryotes. And the performance of CVTree were also compared with multiple sequence alignment-based approaches. Our results revealed that CVTree methods achieve computational speeds 1-3 orders of magnitude faster than conventional alignment methods while maintaining high consistency with established taxonomic relationships, even outperforming some multiple sequence alignment methods. These findings confirm CVTree's effectiveness and efficiency not only for whole-genome evolutionary studies but also for phylogenetic and taxonomic investigations based on genes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[44]

ZuoG2025 In Preparation

work page
[11]

Yilmaz P, Parfrey L W, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, Schweer T, PepliesJ,LudwigW,GlöcknerFO2014 Nucleic Acids Res. 42D643

work page
[34]

Yarza P, Richter M, Peplies J, Euzeby J, Amann R, Schleifer K-H, Ludwig W, GlöcknerFO,Rosselló-MóraR2008 Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 31241

work page
[52]

SaitouN,NeiM1987 Mol. Biol. Evol. 4406 Table 1 The number of monophyletic taxon units with multiple genomes on the phylogenetic trees built by different methods. The number in parentheses in the first column indicates the number of taxonomic units that contain multiple genomes and uniquegenome. TaxonRank InterList Hao ClustalO Muscle MAFFT LTPs Domain(2+0...

work page 1950
[1]

Hugenholtz P, Chuvochina M, Oren A, Parks D H, Soo R M 2021 ISME J. 15 1879

work page 2021
[2]

Glöckner F O, Yilmaz P, Quast C, Gerken J, Beccati A, Ciuprina A, Bruns G, Yarza P, Peplies J, Westram R, Ludwig W 2017 Journal of Biotechnology 261 169

work page 2017
[3]

FoxGE,WoeseCR1977 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 744537

work page
[4]

Albertsen M, Hugenholtz P,SkarshewskiA, Nielsen K L,Tyson GW,Nielsen P H2013 Nat Biotechnol 31533

work page

Show all 52 references

[5]

DegnanPH,OchmanH2012 ISME J. 6183
[6]

Acids Res

Cole J R, Wang Q, Fish J A, Chai B, McGarrell D M, Sun Y, Brown C T, Porras-AlfaroA,KuskeCR,TiedjeJM2014 Nucl. Acids Res. 42D633
[7]

DeSantisTZ,HugenholtzP,LarsenN,RojasM,BrodieEL, KellerK,HuberT, DaleviD,HuP,AndersenGL2006 Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 725069
[8]

Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs B M, Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glockner F O 2007 Nucleic Acids Res. 357188

2007
[9]

CaporasoJG,Kuczynski J,StombaughJ,BittingerK,BushmanFD,CostelloE K, Fierer N, Peña A G, Goodrich J K, Gordon J I, Huttley G A, Kelley S T, Knights D, Koenig J E, Ley R E, Lozupone C A, McDonald D, Muegge B D, Pirrung M, Reeder J, Sevinsky J R, Turnbaugh P J, Walters W A, Widma...
[10]

3reviews0003.1

HugenholtzP2002 Genome Biol. 3reviews0003.1
[12]

ThompsonJD,HigginsDG,GibsonTJ1994 Nucleic Acids Res 224673
[13]

EdgarRC2004 BMC Bioinf. 5113
[14]

NotredameC,HigginsDG,HeringaJ2000 J. Mol. Biol. 302205
[15]

KatohK2002 Nucleic Acids Res. 303059
[16]

PaisFS-M,RuyPDC,OliveiraG,CoimbraRS2014 Algorithms Mol. Biol. 94
[17]

JonesNC,PevznerPA2004 An Introduction to Bioinformatics Algorithms(MIT Press)
[18]

Bonham-CarterO,SteeleJ,BastolaD2014 Briefings Bioinf. 15890
[19]

QiJ,WangB,HaoB2004 J Mol Evol 581
[20]

QiJ,LuoH,HaoB2004 Nucleic Acids Res 32W45
[21]

ZuoG,XuZ,HaoB2013 Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 1161
[22]

ZuoG,HaoB2015 Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 13321
[23]

ZuoG,HaoB,StaleyJT2014 Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 105431
[24]

KjaerbollingI,VesthTC,FrisvadJC,NyboJL,TheobaldS,KuoA,Bowyer P, Matsuda Y, Mondo S, Lyhne E K, Kogle M E, Clum A, Lipzen A, Salamov A, Ngan C Y, Daum C, Chiniquy J, Barry K, LaButti K, Haridas S, Simmons BA, MagnusonJK,MortensenUH,LarsenTO,GrigorievIV,Baker SE,Andersen MR2018 ...
[25]

WangH,XuZ,GaoL,HaoB2009 BMC Evol Biol 9195
[26]

GaoL,QiJ2007 BMC Evol Biol 741
[27]

ChuKH,QiJ,YuZG,AnhV2004 Mol. Biol. Evol. 21200
[28]

YuanJ,ZhuQ,LiuB2014 PLOS One 9e84330
[29]

Liu J,WangH,YangH, ZhangY,WangJ, Zhao F,Qi J 2013 Nucleic Acids Res. 41e3

2013
[30]

Zhang Q, Wu Y, Wang J, Wu G, Long W, Xue Z, Wang L, Zhang X, Pang X, ZhaoY,ZhaoL,ZhangC2016 Sci Rep 627572
[31]

ZuoG,HaoB2017 Phylogenetics
[32]

ZuoG,QiJ,HaoB2018 Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 16310
[33]

ZuoG,XuZ,YuH,HaoB2010 Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 8262
[35]

LudwigW,ViverT,WestramR,FranciscoGagoJ,Bustos-CaparrosE,KnittelK, AmannR,Rossello-MoraR2021 Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 44126218
[36]

TrujilloME, Dedysh S,DeVos P,Hedlund B, Kämpfer P,RaineyFA,Whitman W B 2015 Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (Wiley OnlineLibrary)

2015
[37]

Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman D J, Ostell J, SayersEW2012 Nucleic Acids Res. 41D36
[38]

ParteAC2014 Nucleic Acids Res. 42D613
[39]

ParteAC,SardàCarbasseJ,Meier-KolthoffJP,ReimerLC,GökerM2020 Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 705607
[40]

ZuoG2021 Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 19662
[41]

ZuoG,LiQ,HaoB2014 Comput. Biol. Chem. 53 Pt A166
[42]

PriceMN,DehalPS,ArkinAP2010 PLoS ONE 5e9490
[43]

Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson T J, Karplus K, Li W, Lopez R, McWilliam H, Remmert M, Söding J, Thompson J D, Higgins D G 2011 Mol. Syst. Biol. 7539

2011
[45]

LetunicI,BorkP2021 Nucleic Acids Research 49W293
[46]

Biotechnol

ParksDH,ChuvochinaM,WaiteDW,RinkeC,SkarshewskiA,Chaumeil P-A, HugenholtzP2018 Nat. Biotechnol. 36996
[47]

Microbiol

Hug L A, Baker B J, Anantharaman K, Brown C T, Probst A J, Castelle C J, ButterfieldCN,HernsdorfAW,AmanoY,IseK,SuzukiY,DudekN,RelmanD A,FinstadKM,AmundsonR,ThomasBC,BanfieldJF2016 Nat. Microbiol. 1 16048
[48]

YarzaP,YilmazP,PruesseE,GlöcknerFO,LudwigW,SchleiferK-H,Whitman WB,EuzébyJ,AmannR,Rosselló-MóraR2014 Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12635
[49]

Sneath P H A 1993 International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 43626

1993
[50]

Fox G E, Wisotzkey J D, Jurtshuk P 1992 International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 42166

1992
[51]

StaleyJT2006 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 3611899

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [44]

ZuoG2025 In Preparation

work page

[2] [11]

Yilmaz P, Parfrey L W, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, Schweer T, PepliesJ,LudwigW,GlöcknerFO2014 Nucleic Acids Res. 42D643

work page

[3] [34]

Yarza P, Richter M, Peplies J, Euzeby J, Amann R, Schleifer K-H, Ludwig W, GlöcknerFO,Rosselló-MóraR2008 Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 31241

work page

[4] [52]

SaitouN,NeiM1987 Mol. Biol. Evol. 4406 Table 1 The number of monophyletic taxon units with multiple genomes on the phylogenetic trees built by different methods. The number in parentheses in the first column indicates the number of taxonomic units that contain multiple genomes and uniquegenome. TaxonRank InterList Hao ClustalO Muscle MAFFT LTPs Domain(2+0...

work page 1950

[5] [1]

Hugenholtz P, Chuvochina M, Oren A, Parks D H, Soo R M 2021 ISME J. 15 1879

work page 2021

[6] [2]

Glöckner F O, Yilmaz P, Quast C, Gerken J, Beccati A, Ciuprina A, Bruns G, Yarza P, Peplies J, Westram R, Ludwig W 2017 Journal of Biotechnology 261 169

work page 2017

[7] [3]

FoxGE,WoeseCR1977 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 744537

work page

[8] [4]

Albertsen M, Hugenholtz P,SkarshewskiA, Nielsen K L,Tyson GW,Nielsen P H2013 Nat Biotechnol 31533

work page