ArticleBiology letters2020
Combined-evidence analyses of ultraconserved elements and morphological data: an empirical example in iguanian lizards.
Article in Biology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Palaeogene stem crotaphytid (Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The Making of Calibration Sausage Exemplified by Recalibrating the Transcriptomic Timetree of Jawed Vertebrates.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Combined-evidence analyses of ultraconserved elements and morphological data: an empirical example in iguanian lizards.Biology letters · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic datasets generated by next-generation sequencing are increasingly prevalent in phylogenetics, but morphological data are required to phylogenetically place fossils, corroborate molecular hypotheses and date phylogenies. Combined-evidence analyses provide an integrative assessment of tree topology. However, no attempt has been made to simultaneously analyse next-generation genomic datasets and morphological data, and the future of morphology in the context of genomic data is uncertain. I conducted combined-evidence analyses that include genomic and morphological datasets, specifically, with ultraconserved elements and two morphological matrices. In unweighted maximum-likelihood and Bayesian combined-evidence analyses, morphological signal was dwarfed by the ultraconserved elements, and some node support values were reduced relative to ultraconserved element-only analyses. Increasing the weight of morphological characters allowed those data to influence the tree, but weighting subjectivity should be considered in future analyses. More attempts should be made to simultaneously analyse genomic and morphological datasets.
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.