↓ Skip to main content

Molecular Clock Calibrations and Metazoan Divergence Dates

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
19 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Molecular Clock Calibrations and Metazoan Divergence Dates
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 1999
DOI 10.1007/pl00006562
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael S.Y. Lee

Abstract

It has recently been argued that living metazoans diverged over 800 million years ago, based on evidence from 22 nuclear genes for such a deep divergence between vertebrates and arthropods (Gu 1998). Two "internal" calibration points were used. However, only one fossil divergence date (the mammal-bird split) was directly used to calibrate the molecular clock. The second calibration point (the primate-rodent split) was based on molecular estimates that were ultimately also calibrated by the same mammal-bird split. However, the first tetrapods that can be assigned with confidence to either the mammal (synapsid) lineage or the bird (diapsid) lineage are approximately 288 million years old, while the first mammals that can be assigned with confidence to either the primate or the rodent lineages are 65 million years old, or 85 million years old if ferungulates are part of the primate lineage and zhelestids are accepted as ferungulate relatives. Recalibration of the protein data using these fossil dates indicates that metazoans diverged between 791 and 528 million years ago, a result broadly consistent with the palaeontological documentation of the "Cambrian explosion." The third, "external" calibration point (the metazoan-fungal divergence) was similarly problematic, since it was based on a controversial molecular study (which in turn used fossil dates including the mammal-bird split); direct use of fossils for this calibration point gives the absurd dating of 455 million years for metazoan divergences. Similar calibration problems affect another recent study (Wang et al. 1999), which proposes divergences for metazoans of 1000 million years or more: recalibrations of their clock again yields much more recent dates, some consistent with a "Cambrian explosion" scenario. Molecular clock studies have persuasively argued for the imperfection of the fossil record but have rarely acknowledged that their inferences are also directly based on this same record.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Germany 4 3%
Brazil 3 2%
France 2 2%
Mexico 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 113 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 13%
Professor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 6 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 62%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Linguistics 1 <1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 9 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#493
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,515
of 35,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 35,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.