ArticleGenome biology and evolution2017
Strategies for Partitioning Clock Models in Phylogenomic Dating: Application to the Angiosperm Evolutionary Timescale.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macroevolutionary dynamics and predictors of tropical rain forest plant diversity.Science advances · 2026Article
- Review
- Practical Guide and Review of Fossil Tip-Dating in Phylogenetics.Systematic biology · 2026Review
- Phylogeography and ecological niche modeling suggest southward expansion ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of 12 water lily plastid genomes reveals genomic divergence and evolutionary relationships in early flowering plants.Marine life science & technology · 2024Article
- Sphenodontian phylogeny and the impact of model choice in Bayesian morphological clock estimates of divergence times and evolutionary rates.BMC biology · 2020Article
- Phylogenomics reveals the evolutionary timing and pattern of butterflies and moths.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Highlight: New Solutions and Open Questions in Computational Evolutionary Biology.Genome biology and evolution · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evolutionary timescales can be inferred from molecular sequence data using a Bayesian phylogenetic approach. In these methods, the molecular clock is often calibrated using fossil data. The uncertainty in these fossil calibrations is important because it determines the limiting posterior distribution for divergence-time estimates as the sequence length tends to infinity. Here, we investigate how the accuracy and precision of Bayesian divergence-time estimates improve with the increased clock-partitioning of genome-scale data into clock-subsets. We focus on a data set comprising plastome-scale sequences of 52 angiosperm taxa. There was little difference among the Bayesian date estimates whether we chose clock-subsets based on patterns of among-lineage rate heterogeneity or relative rates across genes, or by random assignment. Increasing the degree of clock-partitioning usually led to an improvement in the precision of divergence-time estimates, but this increase was asymptotic to a limit presumably imposed by fossil calibrations. Our clock-partitioning approaches yielded highly precise age estimates for several key nodes in the angiosperm phylogeny. For example, when partitioning the data into 20 clock-subsets based on patterns of among-lineage rate heterogeneity, we inferred crown angiosperms to have arisen 198-178 Ma. This demonstrates that judicious clock-partitioning can improve the precision of molecular dating based on phylogenomic data, but the meaning of this increased precision should be considered critically.
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.