ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2009
Eumalacostracan phylogeny and total evidence: limitations of the usual suspects.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phylogenetic congruence, conflict and consilience between molecular and morphological data.BMC ecology and evolution · 2023Pooled it
- Phylogenomics supports monophyly of marsupial crustaceans: a journey to direct development.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- A new morphological phylogeny of Malacostraca comparing the application of character dependencies and implied weighting.Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society · 2025Article
- Crustacean conundrums: a review of opsin diversity and evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- The oldest peracarid crustacean reveals a Late Devonian freshwater colonization by isopod relatives.Biology letters · 2021Article
- On the nature and types of anomalies: a review of deviations in data.International journal of data science and analytics · 2021Review
- Tetraconatan phylogeny with special focus on Malacostraca and Branchiopoda: highlighting the strength of taxon-specific matrices in phylogenomics.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Measuring Stratigraphic Congruence Across Trees, Higher Taxa, and Time.Systematic biology · 2016Article
- Calcitic sclerites at base of malacostracan pleopods (Crustacea)--part of a coxa.BMC evolutionary biology · 2015Article
- The brain in three crustaceans from cavernous darkness.BMC neuroscience · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Myogenesis of Malacostraca - the "egg-nauplius" concept revisited.Frontiers in zoology · 2013Article
- Tagmatization in Stomatopoda - reconsidering functional units of modern-day mantis shrimps (Verunipeltata, Hoplocarida) and implications for the interpretation of fossils.Frontiers in zoology · 2012Article
- Review
- High through-put sequencing of the Parhyale hawaiensis mRNAs and microRNAs to aid comparative developmental studies.PloS one · 2012Article
- Phylogenetic representativeness: a new method for evaluating taxon sampling in evolutionary studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe phylogeny of Eumalacostraca (Crustacea) remains elusive, despite over a century of interest. Recent morphological and molecular phylogenies appear highly incongruent, but this has not been assessed quantitatively. Moreover, 18S rRNA trees show striking branch length differences between species, accompanied by a conspicuous clustering of taxa with similar branch lengths. Surprisingly, previous research found no rate heterogeneity. Hitherto, no phylogenetic analysis of all major eumalacostracan taxa (orders) has either combined evidence from multiple loci, or combined molecular and morphological evidence.
resultsWe combined evidence from four nuclear ribosomal and mitochondrial loci (18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, 16S rRNA, and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) with a newly synthesized morphological dataset. We tested the homogeneity of data partitions, both in terms of character congruence and the topological congruence of inferred trees. We also performed Bayesian and parsimony analyses on separate and combined partitions, and tested the contribution of each partition. We tested for potential long-branch attraction (LBA) using taxon deletion experiments, and with relative rate tests. Additionally we searched for molecular polytomies (spurious clades). Lastly, we investigated the phylogenetic stability of taxa, and assessed their impact on inferred relationships over the whole tree. We detected significant conflict between data partitions, especially between morphology and molecules. We found significant rate heterogeneity between species for both the 18S rRNA and combined datasets, introducing the possibility of LBA. As a test case, we showed that LBA probably affected the position of Spelaeogriphacea in the combined molecular evidence analysis. We also demonstrated that several clades, including the previously reported and surprising clade of Amphipoda plus Spelaeogriphacea, are 'supported' by zero length branches. Furthermore we showed that different sets of taxa have the greatest impact upon the relationships within molecular versus morphological trees.
conclusionRate heterogeneity and conflict between data partitions mean that existing molecular and morphological evidence is unable to resolve a well-supported eumalacostracan phylogeny. We believe that it will be necessary to look beyond the most commonly utilized sources of data (nuclear ribosomal and mitochondrial sequences) to obtain a robust tree in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.