Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31288696›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Revisiting metazoan phylogeny with genomic sampling of all phyla.

Christopher E Laumer, Rosa Fernández, Sarah Lemer, David Combosch, Kevin M Kocot, Ana Riesgo, Sónia C S Andrade, Wolfgang Sterrer, Martin V Sørensen, Gonzalo Giribet

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 156 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Early nervous system development in the chaetognathFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. New observation onRoyal Society open science · 2025
    Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christopher E Laumer1 Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Rosa Fernández1 Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Sarah Lemer1 Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
David Combosch1 Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Kevin M Kocot5 Department of Biological Sciences and Alabama Museum of Natural History, The University of Alabama, Campus Box 870344, Tuscaoosa, AL 35487, USA.
Ana Riesgo6 Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum of London, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.
Sónia C S Andrade7 Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, IB, Universidade de São Paulo, 05508090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Wolfgang Sterrer8 Bermuda Natural History Museum, PO Box FL 145, Flatts, FLBX, Bermuda.
Martin V Sørensen9 Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gonzalo Giribet1 Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proper biological interpretation of a phylogeny can sometimes hinge on the placement of key taxa-or fail when such key taxa are not sampled. In this light, we here present the first attempt to investigate (though not conclusively resolve) animal relationships using genome-scale data from all phyla. Results from the site-heterogeneous CAT + GTR model recapitulate many established major clades, and strongly confirm some recent discoveries, such as a monophyletic Lophophorata, and a sister group relationship between Gnathifera and Chaetognatha, raising continued questions on the nature of the spiralian ancestor. We also explore matrix construction with an eye towards testing specific relationships; this approach uniquely recovers support for Panarthropoda, and shows that Lophotrochozoa (a subclade of Spiralia) can be constructed in strongly conflicting ways using different taxon- and/or orthologue sets. Dayhoff-6 recoding sacrifices information, but can also reveal surprising outcomes, e.g. full support for a clade of Lophophorata and Entoprocta + Cycliophora, a clade of Placozoa + Cnidaria, and raising support for Ctenophora as sister group to the remaining Metazoa, in a manner dependent on the gene and/or taxon sampling of the matrix in question. Future work should test the hypothesis that the few remaining uncertainties in animal phylogeny might reflect violations of the various stationarity assumptions used in contemporary inference methods.

Indexed as

GenomicsPhylogenyAnimalsClassificationanimal phylogenycompositional biasmatrix recodingphylogenomicstaxon sampling

Identifiers

PMID31288696
PMCPMC6650721

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.