Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38507308›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2024

DateLife: Leveraging Databases and Analytical Tools to Reveal the Dated Tree of Life.

Luna L Sánchez Reyes, Emily Jane McTavish, Brian O'Meara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A complete and dynamic tree of birds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Challenges in Assembling the Dated Tree of Life.Genome biology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

Luna L Sánchez ReyesDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA.
Emily Jane McTavishDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA.
Brian O'MearaDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 446 Hesler Biology Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.

Funding

National Evolutionary Synthesis Center DBI-0905606National Science Foundation ABI-1458603Open Tree of Life project ABI-1759846Phylotastic project ABI-1458572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronograms-phylogenies with branch lengths proportional to time-represent key data on timing of evolutionary events, allowing us to study natural processes in many areas of biological research. Chronograms also provide valuable information that can be used for education, science communication, and conservation policy decisions. Yet, achieving a high-quality reconstruction of a chronogram is a difficult and resource-consuming task. Here we present DateLife, a phylogenetic software implemented as an R package and an R Shiny web application available at www.datelife.org, that provides services for efficient and easy discovery, summary, reuse, and reanalysis of node age data mined from a curated database of expert, peer-reviewed, and openly available chronograms. The main DateLife workflow starts with one or more scientific taxon names provided by a user. Names are processed and standardized to a unified taxonomy, allowing DateLife to run a name match across its local chronogram database that is curated from Open Tree of Life's phylogenetic repository, and extract all chronograms that contain at least two queried taxon names, along with their metadata. Finally, node ages from matching chronograms are mapped using the congruification algorithm to corresponding nodes on a tree topology, either extracted from Open Tree of Life's synthetic phylogeny or one provided by the user. Congruified node ages are used as secondary calibrations to date the chosen topology, with or without initial branch lengths, using different phylogenetic dating methods such as BLADJ, treePL, PATHd8, and MrBayes. We performed a cross-validation test to compare node ages resulting from a DateLife analysis (i.e, phylogenetic dating using secondary calibrations) to those from the original chronograms (i.e, obtained with primary calibrations), and found that DateLife's node age estimates are consistent with the age estimates from the original chronograms, with the largest variation in ages occurring around topologically deeper nodes. Because the results from any software for scientific analysis can only be as good as the data used as input, we highlight the importance of considering the results of a DateLife analysis in the context of the input chronograms. DateLife can help to increase awareness of the existing disparities among alternative hypotheses of dates for the same diversification events, and to support exploration of the effect of alternative chronogram hypotheses on downstream analyses, providing a framework for a more informed interpretation of evolutionary results.

Indexed as

ClassificationPhylogenySoftwareDatabases, FactualAgescalibrationscongruificationdatingdivergence timesopen sciencephylogenyscalingsecondary calibrationssupertreetree

Identifiers

PMID38507308
PMCPMC11282365

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.