ReviewBiology2026
The Evolution of Molecular Clocks: Concepts, Calibrations, and Challenges.
Review in Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular clocks use the accumulation of genetic changes to estimate the timing of evolutionary and demographic events. Since their formulation in the 1960s, molecular clocks have evolved from relatively simple strict-rate assumptions into a diverse set of statistical frameworks that include strict, relaxed, local and time-dependent models. In this review, we examine the conceptual basis of molecular-clock inference and the biological, demographic and methodological factors that influence clock estimates. We distinguish mutation rates from substitution rates and discuss how molecular, genomic, life-history, environmental and population-level processes can affect estimated evolutionary rates. We then review the main analytical approaches used to estimate branch lengths and divergence times, including maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference, parsimony-based methods and regression-based techniques; we also focus on the statistical evaluation of clock-like behaviour. Particular attention is given to calibration, as molecular clocks only become informative for absolute time estimation when genetic distances are anchored to an external temporal framework. We review calibration strategies based on fossils, geological and biogeographic events, founder events, ancient sequences, pedigrees, direct mutation-rate estimates, longitudinal sampling, secondary calibrations and externally estimated substitution rates. Finally, we discuss cases in which molecular-clock estimates show concordance or discordance with independent archaeological, palaeontological or epidemiological evidence, as well as cases where apparent agreement may reflect circular reasoning. We argue that molecular clocks remain essential tools for evolutionary biology, but that their reliability depends on explicit model testing, transparent calibration choices and careful interpretation of the results.
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.