ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2016
Advances in Time Estimation Methods for Molecular Data.
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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evolutionary Models for the Diversification of Placental Mammals Across the KPg Boundary.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Pooled it
- MEGA 12.1: Cross-Platform Release for macOS and Linux Operating Systems.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- A Pandemic-Scale Ancestral Recombination Graph for SARS-CoV-2.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Integrating genome-wide traits and multi-loci phylogeny to investigate orchid evolution-A case study on Pleurothallidinae.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Article
- Expectation-Maximization enables Phylogenetic Dating under a Categorical Rate Model.Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Modeling Substitution Rate Evolution across Lineages and Relaxing the Molecular Clock.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Review
- PAReTT: A Python Package for the Automated Retrieval and Management of Divergence Time Data from the TimeTree Resource for Downstream Analyses.Journal of molecular evolution · 2023Article
- An evolutionary epigenetic clock in plants.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Investigating the reliability of molecular estimates of evolutionary time when substitution rates and speciation rates vary.BMC ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Embracing Green Computing in Molecular Phylogenetics.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Discrete coalescent trees.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- Accounting for the Biological Complexity of Pathogenic Fungi in Phylogenetic Dating.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Confronting Sources of Systematic Error to Resolve Historically Contentious Relationships: A Case Study Using Gadiform Fishes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii, Gadiformes).Systematic biology · 2021Article
- Molecular benchmarks of a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Divergence-time estimates for hominins provide insight into encephalization and body mass trends in human evolution.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Article
- Log Transformation Improves Dating of Phylogenies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Genomic divergence landscape in recurrently hybridizingEvolution letters · 2021Article
- Article
- Genomic analyses reveal evolutionary and geologic context for the plateau fungusChinese medicine · 2020Article
- Quantifying the Error of Secondary vs. Distant Primary Calibrations in a Simulated Environment.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.