ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2023
Improving Orthologous Signal and Model Fit in Datasets Addressing the Root of the Animal Phylogeny.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproduction and Development in Calcareous Sponges: A Panorama of the Last Two Centuries.Molecular reproduction and development · 2026Review
- When Complex Models Fit the Wrong Mechanistic Complexity in Phylogenomic Analysis.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- Conflict in ant phylogeny results from complex interaction between multiple evolutionary signals and tree reconstruction artifacts.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- CAT-Posterior Mean Site Frequencies Improves Phylogenetic Modeling Under Maximum Likelihood and Resolves Tardigrada as the Sister of Arthropoda Plus Onychophora.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- TIdeS: A Comprehensive Framework for Accurate Open Reading Frame Identification and Classification in Eukaryotic Transcriptomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Reply to: Available data do not rule out Ctenophora as the sister group to all other Metazoa.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is conflicting evidence as to whether Porifera (sponges) or Ctenophora (comb jellies) comprise the root of the animal phylogeny. Support for either a Porifera-sister or Ctenophore-sister tree has been extensively examined in the context of model selection, taxon sampling, and outgroup selection. The influence of dataset construction is comparatively understudied. We re-examine five animal phylogeny datasets that have supported either root hypothesis using an approach designed to enrich orthologous signal in phylogenomic datasets. We find that many component orthogroups in animal datasets fail to recover major lineages as monophyletic with the exception of Ctenophora, regardless of the supported root. Enriching these datasets to retain orthogroups recovering ≥3 major lineages reduces dataset size by up to 50% while retaining underlying phylogenetic information and taxon sampling. Site-heterogeneous phylogenomic analysis of these enriched datasets recovers both Porifera-sister and Ctenophora-sister positions, even with additional constraints on outgroup sampling. Two datasets which previously supported Ctenophora-sister support Porifera-sister upon enrichment. All enriched datasets display improved model fitness under posterior predictive analysis. While not conclusively rooting animals at either Porifera or Ctenophora, we do see an increase in signal for Porifera-sister and a decrease in signal for Ctenophore-sister when data are filtered for orthologous signal. Our results indicate that dataset size and construction as well as model fit influence animal root inference.
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.