↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of methods for estimating substitution rates from ancient DNA sequence data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of methods for estimating substitution rates from ancient DNA sequence data
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12862-018-1192-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Jun Tong, David A. Duchêne, Sebastián Duchêne, Jemma L. Geoghegan, Simon Y. W. Ho

Abstract

Phylogenetic analysis of DNA from modern and ancient samples allows the reconstruction of important demographic and evolutionary processes. A critical component of these analyses is the estimation of evolutionary rates, which can be calibrated using information about the ages of the samples. However, the reliability of these rate estimates can be negatively affected by among-lineage rate variation and non-random sampling. Using a simulation study, we compared the performance of three phylogenetic methods for inferring evolutionary rates from time-structured data sets: regression of root-to-tip distances, least-squares dating, and Bayesian inference. We also applied these three methods to time-structured mitogenomic data sets from six vertebrate species. Our results from 12 simulation scenarios show that the three methods produce reliable estimates when the substitution rate is high, rate variation is low, and samples of similar ages are not all grouped together in the tree (i.e., low phylo-temporal clustering). The interaction of these factors is particularly important for least-squares dating and Bayesian estimation of evolutionary rates. The three estimation methods produced consistent estimates of rates across most of the six mitogenomic data sets, with sequence data from horses being an exception. We recommend that phylogenetic studies of ancient DNA sequences should use multiple methods of inference and test for the presence of temporal signal, among-lineage rate variation, and phylo-temporal clustering in the data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 28%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 5 7%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Unspecified 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,359,319
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,676
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,024
of 342,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#41
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 342,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.