Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36083452›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022

Ancestral State Reconstruction Using BayesTraits.

Andrew Meade, Mark Pagel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Amoebozoan testate amoebae illuminate the diversity of heterotrophs and the complexity of ecosystems throughout geological time.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Phylogenomics of the psychoactive mushroom genusProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Andrew MeadeSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK. a.meade@reading.ac.uk.
Mark PagelSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fossil record is the best evidence of the characteristics of extinct species, but only a narrow range of traits fossilize or survive the fossilization process. Lacking fossil or other evidence about the past, ancestral states can be reconstructed. Three pieces of information are combined when reconstructing ancestral states: extant or known trait values (data); the evolutionary history, linking the species of interest (phylogeny); and the evolutionary model of trait change. These reconstructed ancestral states can be interpreted as our best guess as to the route evolution took, given the distribution of the trait across species, the relationships among them, and our model of evolution. Because the information we use to reconstruct the past is often not known without error, uncertainty about their true values should be accounted for when reconstructing ancestral states. In this chapter we describe how ancestral states can be reconstructed using a Bayesian framework implemented in the software BayesTraits to account for uncertainty in the phylogenetic tree and the model of evolution.

Indexed as

FossilsSoftwareBayes TheoremPhenotypePhylogenyAncestral state reconstructionBayesianEvolutionary modelsPhylogenetic comparative methods

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.