Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168719›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary bioinformatics online2016

Estimating Divergence Times and Substitution Rates in Rhizobia.

Rim Chriki-Adeeb, Ali Chriki

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary bioinformatics online, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rim Chriki-AdeebDépartement de Biologie, Laboratoire de Génétique, Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, Jarzouna, Tunisie.
Ali ChrikiDépartement de Biologie, Laboratoire de Génétique, Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, Jarzouna, Tunisie.
University of Carthage · TN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate estimation of divergence times of soil bacteria that form nitrogen-fixing associations with most leguminous plants is challenging because of a limited fossil record and complexities associated with molecular clocks and phylogenetic diversity of root nodule bacteria, collectively called rhizobia. To overcome the lack of fossil record in bacteria, divergence times of host legumes were used to calibrate molecular clocks and perform phylogenetic analyses in rhizobia. The 16S rRNA gene and intergenic spacer region remain among the favored molecular markers to reconstruct the timescale of rhizobia. We evaluate the performance of the random local clock model and the classical uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock model, in combination with four tree models (coalescent constant size, birth-death, birth-death incomplete sampling, and Yule processes) on rhizobial divergence time estimates. Bayes factor tests based on the marginal likelihoods estimated from the stepping-stone sampling analyses strongly favored the random local clock model in combination with Yule process. Our results on the divergence time estimation from 16S rRNA gene and intergenic spacer region sequences are compatible with age estimates based on the conserved core genes but significantly older than those obtained from symbiotic genes, such as nodIJ genes. This difference may be due to the accelerated evolutionary rates of symbiotic genes compared to those of other genomic regions not directly implicated in nodulation processes.

Indexed as

16S rRNA geneBayes factorsITSnodIJ genesrandom local clockrhizobiauncorrelated lognormal clock

Identifiers

PMID27168719
PMCPMC4856229
OpenAlexW2346956095

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.