Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26333662›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2015

Biogeographic calibrations for the molecular clock.

Simon Y W Ho, K Jun Tong, Charles S P Foster, Andrew M Ritchie, Nathan Lo, Michael D Crisp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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. Review
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

6 authors.

Simon Y W HoSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia simon.ho@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0361-2307
K Jun TongSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Charles S P FosterSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Andrew M RitchieSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Nathan LoSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Michael D CrispResearch School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular estimates of evolutionary timescales have an important role in a range of biological studies. Such estimates can be made using methods based on molecular clocks, including models that are able to account for rate variation across lineages. All clock models share a dependence on calibrations, which enable estimates to be given in absolute time units. There are many available methods for incorporating fossil calibrations, but geological and climatic data can also provide useful calibrations for molecular clocks. However, a number of strong assumptions need to be made when using these biogeographic calibrations, leading to wide variation in their reliability and precision. In this review, we describe the nature of biogeographic calibrations and the assumptions that they involve. We present an overview of the different geological and climatic events that can provide informative calibrations, and explain how such temporal information can be incorporated into dating analyses.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularPhylogenyCalibrationClimate ChangeFossilsGeological PhenomenaPhylogeographyBayesian phylogeneticsbiogeographycalibrationdivergence datingmolecular clock

Identifiers

PMID26333662
PMCPMC4614420

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.