Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26882983›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2016

Advances in Time Estimation Methods for Molecular Data.

Sudhir Kumar, S Blair Hedges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Pandemic-Scale Ancestral Recombination Graph for SARS-CoV-2.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. An evolutionary epigenetic clock in plants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Embracing Green Computing in Molecular Phylogenetics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  11. Discrete coalescent trees.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Log Transformation Improves Dating of Phylogenies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Sudhir KumarInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University Center for Biodiversity, Temple University Department of Biology, Temple University s.kumar@temple.edu.
S Blair HedgesInstitute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University Center for Biodiversity, Temple University Department of Biology, Temple University.

Funding

REACTION ROBOT FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT DNA SEQUENCINGR43HG000296 · NHGRI · DNASTAR, INC. · PI MILLER, GERALD · 1991 to 1991
–
REACTION ROBOT FOR HIGH SPEED THROUGHPUT DNA SEQUENCINGR44HG000296 · NHGRI · DNASTAR, INC. · PI SCHROEDER, JOHN L · 1993 to 1994
–
NHGRI NIH HHS HG00296-12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular dating has become central to placing a temporal dimension on the tree of life. Methods for estimating divergence times have been developed for over 50 years, beginning with the proposal of molecular clock in 1962. We categorize the chronological development of these methods into four generations based on the timing of their origin. In the first generation approaches (1960s-1980s), a strict molecular clock was assumed to date divergences. In the second generation approaches (1990s), the equality of evolutionary rates between species was first tested and then a strict molecular clock applied to estimate divergence times. The third generation approaches (since ∼2000) account for differences in evolutionary rates across the tree by using a statistical model, obviating the need to assume a clock or to test the equality of evolutionary rates among species. Bayesian methods in the third generation require a specific or uniform prior on the speciation-process and enable the inclusion of uncertainty in clock calibrations. The fourth generation approaches (since 2012) allow rates to vary from branch to branch, but do not need prior selection of a statistical model to describe the rate variation or the specification of speciation model. With high accuracy, comparable to Bayesian approaches, and speeds that are orders of magnitude faster, fourth generation methods are able to produce reliable timetrees of thousands of species using genome scale data. We found that early time estimates from second generation studies are similar to those of third and fourth generation studies, indicating that methodological advances have not fundamentally altered the timetree of life, but rather have facilitated time estimation by enabling the inclusion of more species. Nonetheless, we feel an urgent need for testing the accuracy and precision of third and fourth generation methods, including their robustness to misspecification of priors in the analysis of large phylogenies and data sets.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic SpeciationPhylogenyBayes TheoremFossilsGenomeTimecomparative genomicsdating.molecular clock

Identifiers

PMID26882983
PMCPMC5870647

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.