Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40990933›Full record

ReviewJournal of evolutionary biology2026

Phylogenetic comparative methods for studying adaptation: the adaptation-inertia framework.

Jason Pienaar, Krzysztof Bartoszek, Bayu Brahmantio, Janna L Fierst, Jesualdo A Fuentes-González, Thomas F Hansen, Woodrow Hao C Kiang, Bjørn T Kopperud, Kjetil L Voje

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Jason PienaarThe Institute of Environment and the Biomolecular Sciences Institute, Florida International University, Miami, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9631-392X
Krzysztof BartoszekDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5816-4345
Bayu BrahmantioDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7360-7087
Janna L FierstThe Institute of Environment and the Biomolecular Sciences Institute, Florida International University, Miami, United States.
Jesualdo A Fuentes-GonzálezThe Institute of Environment and the Biomolecular Sciences Institute, Florida International University, Miami, United States.
Thomas F HansenCenter for Evolutionary and Ecological Synthesis, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Woodrow Hao C KiangDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Bjørn T KopperudDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Paleontology and Geobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Kjetil L VojeNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2556-3080

Funding

Structural variants and the locus of evolutionR35GM147245 · NIGMS · FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY · PI Janna Lynn Fierst · 2022 to 2026
$1.8M
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 6201/1-1ELLIITEuropean Research Council-2020-STG 948465European Research Council MacDrive 101043187National Science Foundation 1941854National Science Foundation 2045035National Science Foundation 2225683National Science Foundation 2412309NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM147245Swedish Research Council 2017-0495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phylogenetic comparative methods are a major tool for evaluating macroevolutionary hypotheses. Methods based on the mean-reverting stochastic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process allow for modelling adaptation on a phenotypic adaptive landscape that itself evolves and where fitness peaks depend on measured characteristics of the external environment and/or other organismal traits. Here, we give an overview of the conceptual framework for the many implementations of these methods and discuss how we might interpret estimated parameters. We emphasize that the ability to model a changing adaptive landscape sets these methods apart from other approaches and discuss why this aspect captures long-term trait evolution more realistically. Recent multivariate extensions of these methods provide a powerful framework for testing evolutionary hypotheses but are also more complicated to use and interpret. We provide some guidance on their usage and put recent literature on the topic in biological rather than mathematical terms. We further show how these methods provide a starting point for modelling reciprocal selection (i.e., coevolution) between interacting lineages. We then briefly review some critiques of the methodologies. Finally, we provide some ideas for future developments that we think will be useful to evolutionary biologists.

Indexed as

Adaptation, BiologicalAdaptation, PhysiologicalBiological EvolutionModels, GeneticPhylogenyAnimalsAdaptationAdaptive LandscapeMacroevolutionOrnstein-Uhlenbeck ProcessPhylogenetic Comparative MethodsPhylogenetic Inertia

Identifiers

PMID40990933
PMCPMC13237619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.