Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24627183›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2014

Species delimitation using genome-wide SNP data.

Adam D Leaché, Matthew K Fujita, Vladimir N Minin, Remco R Bouckaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic Review: Long-Read Sequencing in Algal Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adam D LeachéDepartment of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; leache@uw.edu.
Matthew K FujitaDepartment of Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA;
Vladimir N MininDepartment of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;
Remco R BouckaertComputational Evolution Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

BAYESIAN MODELING AND DATA INTEGRATION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASE PHYLODYNAMICSR01AI107034 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MININ, VOLODYMYR · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI107034NIAID NIH HHS R01-AI107034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The multispecies coalescent has provided important progress for evolutionary inferences, including increasing the statistical rigor and objectivity of comparisons among competing species delimitation models. However, Bayesian species delimitation methods typically require brute force integration over gene trees via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), which introduces a large computation burden and precludes their application to genomic-scale data. Here we combine a recently introduced dynamic programming algorithm for estimating species trees that bypasses MCMC integration over gene trees with sophisticated methods for estimating marginal likelihoods, needed for Bayesian model selection, to provide a rigorous and computationally tractable technique for genome-wide species delimitation. We provide a critical yet simple correction that brings the likelihoods of different species trees, and more importantly their corresponding marginal likelihoods, to the same common denominator, which enables direct and accurate comparisons of competing species delimitation models using Bayes factors. We test this approach, which we call Bayes factor delimitation (*with genomic data; BFD*), using common species delimitation scenarios with computer simulations. Varying the numbers of loci and the number of samples suggest that the approach can distinguish the true model even with few loci and limited samples per species. Misspecification of the prior for population size θ has little impact on support for the true model. We apply the approach to West African forest geckos (Hemidactylus fasciatus complex) using genome-wide SNP data. This new Bayesian method for species delimitation builds on a growing trend for objective species delimitation methods with explicit model assumptions that are easily tested. [Bayes factor; model testing; phylogeography; RADseq; simulation; speciation.].

Indexed as

PhylogenyAlgorithmsAnimalsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationGenomeLizardsPhylogeographyPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID24627183
PMCPMC4072903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.