Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32011711›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2020

The Multispecies Coalescent Model Outperforms Concatenation Across Diverse Phylogenomic Data Sets.

Xiaodong Jiang, Scott V Edwards, Liang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Genomes, fossils, and the concurrent rise of modern birds and flowering plants in the Late Cretaceous.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Likelihood-Based Tests of Species Tree Hypotheses.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genome Evolution and the Future of Phylogenomics of Non-Avian Reptiles.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Recent progress on methods for estimating and updating large phylogenies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  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.

Xiaodong JiangDepartment of Statistics, University of Georgia, 310 Herty Drive, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Scott V EdwardsDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Liang LiuDepartment of Statistics, University of Georgia, 310 Herty Drive, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A statistical framework of model comparison and model validation is essential to resolving the debates over concatenation and coalescent models in phylogenomic data analysis. A set of statistical tests are here applied and developed to evaluate and compare the adequacy of substitution, concatenation, and multispecies coalescent (MSC) models across 47 phylogenomic data sets collected across tree of life. Tests for substitution models and the concatenation assumption of topologically congruent gene trees suggest that a poor fit of substitution models, rejected by 44% of loci, and concatenation models, rejected by 38% of loci, is widespread. Logistic regression shows that the proportions of GC content and informative sites are both negatively correlated with the fit of substitution models across loci. Moreover, a substantial violation of the concatenation assumption of congruent gene trees is consistently observed across six major groups (birds, mammals, fish, insects, reptiles, and others, including other invertebrates). In contrast, among those loci adequately described by a given substitution model, the proportion of loci rejecting the MSC model is 11%, significantly lower than those rejecting the substitution and concatenation models. Although conducted on reduced data sets due to computational constraints, Bayesian model validation and comparison both strongly favor the MSC over concatenation across all data sets; the concatenation assumption of congruent gene trees rarely holds for phylogenomic data sets with more than 10 loci. Thus, for large phylogenomic data sets, model comparisons are expected to consistently and more strongly favor the coalescent model over the concatenation model. We also found that loci rejecting the MSC have little effect on species tree estimation. Our study reveals the value of model validation and comparison in phylogenomic data analysis, as well as the need for further improvements of multilocus models and computational tools for phylogenetic inference. [Bayes factor; Bayesian model validation; coalescent prior; congruent gene trees; independent prior; Metazoa; posterior predictive simulation.].

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPhylogenyAnimalsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID32011711
PMCPMC7302055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.