Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27325833›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2016

Closing the gap between rocks and clocks using total-evidence dating.

Fredrik Ronquist, Nicolas Lartillot, Matthew J Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

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

3 authors.

Fredrik RonquistDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, PO Box 50007, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden fredrik.ronquist@nrm.se.ORCID 0000-0002-3929-251X
Nicolas LartillotLaboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, UMR CNRS 5558, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9973-7760
Matthew J PhillipsSchool of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1532-449X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total-evidence dating (TED) allows evolutionary biologists to incorporate a wide range of dating information into a unified statistical analysis. One might expect this to improve the agreement between rocks and clocks but this is not necessarily the case. We explore the reasons for such discordance using a mammalian dataset with rich molecular, morphological and fossil information. There is strong conflict in this dataset between morphology and molecules under standard stochastic models. This causes TED to push divergence events back in time when using inadequate models or vague priors, a phenomenon we term 'deep root attraction' (DRA). We identify several causes of DRA. Failure to account for diversified sampling results in dramatic DRA, but this can be addressed using existing techniques. Inadequate morphological models also appear to be a major contributor to DRA. The major reason seems to be that current models do not account for dependencies among morphological characters, causing distorted topology and branch length estimates. This is particularly problematic for huge morphological datasets, which may contain large numbers of correlated characters. Finally, diversification and fossil sampling priors that do not incorporate all the available background information can contribute to DRA, but these priors can also be used to compensate for DRA. Specifically, we show that DRA in the mammalian dataset can be addressed by introducing a modest extra penalty for ghost lineages that are unobserved in the fossil record, for instance by assuming rapid diversification, rare extinction or high fossil sampling rate; any of these assumptions produces highly congruent divergence time estimates with a minimal gap between rocks and clocks. Under these conditions, fossils have a stabilizing influence on divergence time estimates and significantly increase the precision of those estimates, which are generally close to the dates suggested by palaeontologists.This article is part of the themed issue 'Dating species divergences using rocks and clocks'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionAnimalsCalibrationEvolution, MolecularFossilsMammalsPhylogenyTimedeep root attractionfossilized birth–deathmammalstotal-evidence dating

Identifiers

PMID27325833
PMCPMC4920337

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.