Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38153910›Full record

SynthesisSystematic biology2024

The Limits of the Constant-rate Birth-Death Prior for Phylogenetic Tree Topology Inference.

Mark P Khurana, Neil Scheidwasser-Clow, Matthew J Penn, Samir Bhatt, David A Duchêne

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mathematically tractable models of random phylogenetic networks: an overview of some recent developments.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Speciation completion rates have limited impact on macroevolutionary diversification.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Tree balance in phylogenetic models.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    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.

Mark P KhuranaSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 1352 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1123-7674
Neil Scheidwasser-ClowSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 1352 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Matthew J PennDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, OX1 3LB, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8682-5393
Samir BhattSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, 1352 Copenhagen, Denmark.
David A DuchêneCentre for Evolutionary Hologenomics, University of Copenhagen, 1352 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5479-1974

Funding

European Research Council H2020-MSCA-IF-2019-883832Medical Research CouncilMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis MR/R015600/1National Institute for Health ResearchSchmidt Polymath Award G-22-63345UK Health Security Agency NIHR200908
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Birth-death models are stochastic processes describing speciation and extinction through time and across taxa and are widely used in biology for inference of evolutionary timescales. Previous research has highlighted how the expected trees under the constant-rate birth-death (crBD) model tend to differ from empirical trees, for example, with respect to the amount of phylogenetic imbalance. However, our understanding of how trees differ between the crBD model and the signal in empirical data remains incomplete. In this Point of View, we aim to expose the degree to which the crBD model differs from empirically inferred phylogenies and test the limits of the model in practice. Using a wide range of topology indices to compare crBD expectations against a comprehensive dataset of 1189 empirically estimated trees, we confirm that crBD model trees frequently differ topologically compared with empirical trees. To place this in the context of standard practice in the field, we conducted a meta-analysis for a subset of the empirical studies. When comparing studies that used Bayesian methods and crBD priors with those that used other non-crBD priors and non-Bayesian methods (i.e., maximum likelihood methods), we do not find any significant differences in tree topology inferences. To scrutinize this finding for the case of highly imbalanced trees, we selected the 100 trees with the greatest imbalance from our dataset, simulated sequence data for these tree topologies under various evolutionary rates, and re-inferred the trees under maximum likelihood and using the crBD model in a Bayesian setting. We find that when the substitution rate is low, the crBD prior results in overly balanced trees, but the tendency is negligible when substitution rates are sufficiently high. Overall, our findings demonstrate the general robustness of crBD priors across a broad range of phylogenetic inference scenarios but also highlight that empirically observed phylogenetic imbalance is highly improbable under the crBD model, leading to systematic bias in data sets with limited information content.

Indexed as

ClassificationPhylogenyBayes TheoremBirth RateModels, BiologicalModels, GeneticBirth–death modelphylogenetic timescale inferencetree imbalancetree shape

Identifiers

PMID38153910
PMCPMC11129600

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.