Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770990›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

The evolution of the tree of life.

Molly Chen, Artem I Kholodov, Laura A Hug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Chance and purpose in the evolution of biospheres.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

3 authors.

Molly ChenDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1, Canada.
Artem I KholodovDepartment of Data Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1, Canada.
Laura A HugDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5974-9428

Funding

Canada Research Chairs
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tree of life is one of the most important organizing principles in biology. Updates and revisions are historically derived from improved data capture, increasingly refined models of evolution and expanded taxon sampling. Tracing the changes in the tree of life over the molecular era (1990-present) highlights the evolution of biologists' understanding of life on earth and serves as a foil placing the explosion of available data over this timeframe in context. Using current-day information, we explored the taxonomic growth captured in a tree of life through historic tree reconstruction. Data capture is now facilitating improvements in genome quality rather than expanding deep diversity, as the rate of novel phylum discovery is slowing for bacteria and archaea. Using dissimilarity metrics, the proportion of changes that each historic tree encompasses identified a diminishing influence of additional taxa on high-level topological revisions. No trees recapitulated current hypotheses for deep relationships on the tree of life, reflective of disadvantages associated with high taxon sampling and the divide-and-conquer methodologies required to analyse extremely large datasets. This work clarifies the effect of the interaction between data quality, data quantity and taxonomic diversity on our ability to construct a stable tree of life.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Chance and purpose in the evolution of biospheres'.

Indexed as

ArchaeaBacteriaBiological EvolutionPhylogenydiversityevolutionphylogenomicstaxon selectiontree of life

Identifiers

PMID40770990
PMCPMC12329449

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.