Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26493827›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2016

Total-Evidence Dating under the Fossilized Birth-Death Process.

Chi Zhang, Tanja Stadler, Seraina Klopfstein, Tracy A Heath, Fredrik Ronquist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing 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

140 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 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

5 authors.

Chi ZhangDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden;
Tanja StadlerDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 4053 Basel, Switzerland; Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), Switzerland;
Seraina KlopfsteinDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Invertebrates, Natural History Museum Bern, CH-3005 Bern, Switzerland;
Tracy A HeathDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA; Department of Ecology, Evolution & Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden; fredrik.ronquist@nrm.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian total-evidence dating involves the simultaneous analysis of morphological data from the fossil record and morphological and sequence data from recent organisms, and it accommodates the uncertainty in the placement of fossils while dating the phylogenetic tree. Due to the flexibility of the Bayesian approach, total-evidence dating can also incorporate additional sources of information. Here, we take advantage of this and expand the analysis to include information about fossilization and sampling processes. Our work is based on the recently described fossilized birth-death (FBD) process, which has been used to model speciation, extinction, and fossilization rates that can vary over time in a piecewise manner. So far, sampling of extant and fossil taxa has been assumed to be either complete or uniformly at random, an assumption which is only valid for a minority of data sets. We therefore extend the FBD process to accommodate diversified sampling of extant taxa, which is standard practice in studies of higher-level taxa. We verify the implementation using simulations and apply it to the early radiation of Hymenoptera (wasps, ants, and bees). Previous total-evidence dating analyses of this data set were based on a simple uniform tree prior and dated the initial radiation of extant Hymenoptera to the late Carboniferous (309 Ma). The analyses using the FBD prior under diversified sampling, however, date the radiation to the Triassic and Permian (252 Ma), slightly older than the age of the oldest hymenopteran fossils. By exploring a variety of FBD model assumptions, we show that it is mainly the accommodation of diversified sampling that causes the push toward more recent divergence times. Accounting for diversified sampling thus has the potential to close the long-discussed gap between rocks and clocks. We conclude that the explicit modeling of fossilization and sampling processes can improve divergence time estimates, but only if all important model aspects, including sampling biases, are adequately addressed.

Indexed as

FossilsModels, BiologicalAnimalsBiodiversityClassificationGenetic SpeciationHymenopteraPhylogenyTimeBayesian phylogenetic inferencebirth–death processMCMCrelaxed clocktotal-evidence datingtree prior

Identifiers

PMID26493827
PMCPMC4748749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.