Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31800571›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2019

Inferring the mammal tree: Species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation.

Nathan S Upham, Jacob A Esselstyn, Walter Jetz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 483 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
483citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

483 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Humans are not unique: difficult birth is common in placental mammals.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Temperature-Associated Variation in Evolutionary Rates ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

Nathan S UphamDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5412-9342
Jacob A EsselstynDepartment of Biological Sciences and Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.
Walter JetzDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Big, time-scaled phylogenies are fundamental to connecting evolutionary processes to modern biodiversity patterns. Yet inferring reliable phylogenetic trees for thousands of species involves numerous trade-offs that have limited their utility to comparative biologists. To establish a robust evolutionary timescale for all approximately 6,000 living species of mammals, we developed credible sets of trees that capture root-to-tip uncertainty in topology and divergence times. Our "backbone-and-patch" approach to tree building applies a newly assembled 31-gene supermatrix to two levels of Bayesian inference: (1) backbone relationships and ages among major lineages, using fossil node or tip dating, and (2) species-level "patch" phylogenies with nonoverlapping in-groups that each correspond to one representative lineage in the backbone. Species unsampled for DNA are either excluded ("DNA-only" trees) or imputed within taxonomic constraints using branch lengths drawn from local birth-death models ("completed" trees). Joining time-scaled patches to backbones results in species-level trees of extant Mammalia with all branches estimated under the same modeling framework, thereby facilitating rate comparisons among lineages as disparate as marsupials and placentals. We compare our phylogenetic trees to previous estimates of mammal-wide phylogeny and divergence times, finding that (1) node ages are broadly concordant among studies, and (2) recent (tip-level) rates of speciation are estimated more accurately in our study than in previous "supertree" approaches, in which unresolved nodes led to branch-length artifacts. Credible sets of mammalian phylogenetic history are now available for download at http://vertlife.org/phylosubsets, enabling investigations of long-standing questions in comparative biology.

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremBiodiversityBiological EvolutionComputer SimulationEvolution, MolecularFossilsMammalsPhylogenySoftwareSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31800571
PMCPMC6892540

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.