Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32073641›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2020

Morphological Phylogenetics Evaluated Using Novel Evolutionary Simulations.

Joseph N Keating, Robert S Sansom, Mark D Sutton, Christopher G Knight, Russell J Garwood

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph N KeatingDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Universityof Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Robert S SansomDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Universityof Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Mark D SuttonDepartment of Earth Science and Engineering, South Kensington Campus, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Christopher G KnightDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Universityof Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Russell J GarwoodDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Universityof Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
University of Manchester · GBImperial College London · GBNatural History Museum · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N015827/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolutionary inferences require reliable phylogenies. Morphological data have traditionally been analyzed using maximum parsimony, but recent simulation studies have suggested that Bayesian analyses yield more accurate trees. This debate is ongoing, in part, because of ambiguity over modes of morphological evolution and a lack of appropriate models. Here, we investigate phylogenetic methods using two novel simulation models-one in which morphological characters evolve stochastically along lineages and another in which individuals undergo selection. Both models generate character data and lineage splitting simultaneously: the resulting trees are an emergent property, rather than a fixed parameter. Standard consensus methods for Bayesian searches (Mki) yield fewer incorrect nodes and quartets than the standard consensus trees recovered using equal weighting and implied weighting parsimony searches. Distances between the pool of derived trees (most parsimonious or posterior distribution) and the true trees-measured using Robinson-Foulds (RF), subtree prune and regraft (SPR), and tree bisection reconnection (TBR) metrics-demonstrate that this is related to the search strategy and consensus method of each technique. The amount and structure of homoplasy in character data differ between models. Morphological coherence, which has previously not been considered in this context, proves to be a more important factor for phylogenetic accuracy than homoplasy. Selection-based models exhibit relatively lower homoplasy, lower morphological coherence, and higher inaccuracy in inferred trees. Selection is a dominant driver of morphological evolution, but we demonstrate that it has a confounding effect on numerous character properties which are fundamental to phylogenetic inference. We suggest that the current debate should move beyond considerations of parsimony versus Bayesian, toward identifying modes of morphological evolution and using these to build models for probabilistic search methods. [Bayesian; evolution; morphology; parsimony; phylogenetics; selection; simulation.].

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, BiologicalPhylogenyClassification

Identifiers

PMID32073641
PMCPMC7440746
OpenAlexW3005982426

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.