ArticleSystematic biology2024
Bayesian Inference Under the Multispecies Coalescent with Ancient DNA Sequences.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ancient DNA (aDNA) is increasingly being used to investigate questions such as the phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of extant and extinct species. If aDNA samples are sufficiently old, expected branch lengths (in units of nucleotide substitutions) are reduced relative to contemporary samples. This can be accounted for by incorporating sample ages into phylogenetic analyses. Existing methods that use tip (sample) dates infer gene trees rather than species trees, which can lead to incorrect or biased inferences of the species tree. Methods using a multispecies coalescent (MSC) model overcome these issues. We developed an MSC model with tip dates and implemented it in the program BPP. The method performed well for a range of biologically realistic scenarios, estimating calibrated divergence times and mutation rates precisely. Simulations suggest that estimation precision can be best improved by prioritizing sampling of many loci and more ancient samples. Incorrectly treating ancient samples as contemporary in analyzing simulated data, mimicking a common practice of empirical analyses, led to large systematic biases in model parameters, including divergence times. Two genomic datasets of mammoths and elephants were analyzed, demonstrating the method's empirical utility.
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.