Close
Help
Need Help?





JOURNAL

Evolutionary Bioinformatics

749,571 Journal Article Views | Journal Analytics

Reliable Phylogenetic Trees Building: A New Web Interface for FIGENIX

Submit a Paper



Publication Date: 05 Jul 2012

Type: Rapid Communication

Journal: Evolutionary Bioinformatics

Citation: Evolutionary Bioinformatics 2012:8 417-421

doi: 10.4137/EBO.S9179

Abstract

The community needed a reliable and user friendly tool to quickly produce robust phylogenetic trees which are crucial in evolutionary studies and genomes’ functional annotation. FIGENIX is software dedicated to this and was published in 2005. Several laboratories around the world use it in their research, but it was difficult to use for non-expert users, thus we developed a new graphical user interface for the benefit of all biologists.


Downloads

PDF  (1.89 MB PDF FORMAT)

RIS citation   (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)

BibTex citation   (BIBDESK, LATEX)

XML

PMC HTML


Sharing


Our Service Promise

  • Prompt Processing (3 Weeks to Editorial Decision)
  • Fair, Independent Peer Review
  • High Visibility & Extensive Indexing
What Your Colleagues Say About Evolutionary Bioinformatics
My co-authors and I had a very positive experience with the review and publication process in Evolutionary Bioinformatics.  The reviewers were rapid and on point, and publication was also rapid after we made the necessary revisions.
Professor Steven Salzberg (Director, Center for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)
More Testimonials

Quick Links




Follow Us We make it easy to find new research papers.
Email Alerts RSS Feeds
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube




SUBJECT HUBS
Author Survey Results
author_survey_results
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.
See Our Results