Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35421982›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2022

Early cephalopod evolution clarified through Bayesian phylogenetic inference.

Alexander Pohle, Björn Kröger, Rachel C M Warnock, Andy H King, David H Evans, Martina Aubrechtová, Marcela Cichowolski, Xiang Fang, Christian Klug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Alexander PohlePaläontologisches Institut und Museum, Universität Zürich, Karl-Schmid-Strasse 4, CH-8006, Zürich, Switzerland. alexander.pohle@pim.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-6979-1048
Björn KrögerFinnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 44, Jyrängöntie 2, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-2427-2364
Rachel C M WarnockGeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Loewenichstrasse 28, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9151-4642
Andy H KingGeckoella Ltd, Suite 323, 7 Bridge Street, Taunton, TA1 1TG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4231-9012
David H EvansNatural England, Rivers House, East Quay, Bridgwater, TA6 4YS, UK.
Martina AubrechtováInstitute of Geology and Palaeontology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, 12843, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9804-3249
Marcela CichowolskiInstituto de Estudios Andinos "Don Pablo Groeber", CONICET and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria, Pab. 2, C1428EGA, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Xiang FangState Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing, 210008, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4415-8515
Christian KlugPaläontologisches Institut und Museum, Universität Zürich, Karl-Schmid-Strasse 4, CH-8006, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4099-7453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the excellent fossil record of cephalopods, their early evolution is poorly understood. Different, partly incompatible phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed in the past, which reflected individual author's opinions on the importance of certain characters but were not based on thorough cladistic analyses. At the same time, methods of phylogenetic inference have undergone substantial improvements. For fossil datasets, which typically only include morphological data, Bayesian inference and in particular the introduction of the fossilized birth-death model have opened new possibilities. Nevertheless, many tree topologies recovered from these new methods reflect large uncertainties, which have led to discussions on how to best summarize the information contained in the posterior set of trees.

resultsWe present a large, newly compiled morphological character matrix of Cambrian and Ordovician cephalopods to conduct a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis and resolve existing controversies. Our results recover three major monophyletic groups, which correspond to the previously recognized Endoceratoidea, Multiceratoidea, and Orthoceratoidea, though comprising slightly different taxa. In addition, many Cambrian and Early Ordovician representatives of the Ellesmerocerida and Plectronocerida were recovered near the root. The Ellesmerocerida is para- and polyphyletic, with some of its members recovered among the Multiceratoidea and early Endoceratoidea. These relationships are robust against modifications of the dataset. While our trees initially seem to reflect large uncertainties, these are mainly a consequence of the way clade support is measured. We show that clade posterior probabilities and tree similarity metrics often underestimate congruence between trees, especially if wildcard taxa are involved.

conclusionsOur results provide important insights into the earliest evolution of cephalopods and clarify evolutionary pathways. We provide a classification scheme that is based on a robust phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, we provide some general insights on the application of Bayesian phylogenetic inference on morphological datasets. We support earlier findings that quartet similarity metrics should be preferred over the Robinson-Foulds distance when higher-level phylogenetic relationships are of interest and propose that using a posteriori pruned maximum clade credibility trees help in assessing support for phylogenetic relationships among a set of relevant taxa, because they provide clade support values that better reflect the phylogenetic signal.

Indexed as

CephalopodaAnimalsBayes TheoremFossilsPhylogenyProbabilityBayesian phylogeneticsCephalopodaEndoceratoideaFossilized birth-death processMulticeratoideaNautiloideaOrthoceratoideaPhylogenyPosterior clade probabilitiesTree similarities

Identifiers

PMID35421982
PMCPMC9008929

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.