ArticleGenome biology and evolution2024
Dollo Parsimony Overestimates Ancestral Gene Content Reconstructions.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolution of gene functional repertoire in Amorphea: divergent strategies across Amoebozoa, Fungi, and Metazoa.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- PharaohFUN: phylogenomic analysis for plant protein history and function elucidation.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Evolution of the Metazoan Protein Domain Repertoire Revealed by a Birth-Death-Gain Model.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Reconstructing the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes.PLoS biology · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Ancestral reconstruction is a widely used technique that has been applied to understand the evolutionary history of gain and loss of gene families. Ancestral gene content can be reconstructed via different phylogenetic methods, but many current and previous studies employ Dollo parsimony. We hypothesize that Dollo parsimony is not appropriate for ancestral gene content reconstruction inferences based on sequence homology, as Dollo parsimony is derived from the assumption that a complex character cannot be regained. This premise does not accurately model molecular sequence evolution, in which false orthology can result from sequence convergence or lateral gene transfer. The aim of this study is to test Dollo parsimony's suitability for ancestral gene content reconstruction and to compare its inferences with a maximum likelihood-based approach that allows a gene family to be gained more than once within a tree. We first compared the performance of the two approaches on a series of artificial data sets each of 5,000 genes that were simulated according to a spectrum of evolutionary rates without gene gain or loss, so that inferred deviations from the true gene count would arise only from errors in orthology inference and ancestral reconstruction. Next, we reconstructed protein domain evolution on a phylogeny representing known eukaryotic diversity. We observed that Dollo parsimony produced numerous ancestral gene content overestimations, especially at nodes closer to the root of the tree. These observations led us to the conclusion that, confirming our hypothesis, Dollo parsimony is not an appropriate method for ancestral reconstruction studies based on sequence homology.
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.