↓ Skip to main content

Beyond fossil calibrations: realities of molecular clock practices in evolutionary biology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beyond fossil calibrations: realities of molecular clock practices in evolutionary biology
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christy A. Hipsley, Johannes Müller

Abstract

Molecular-based divergence dating methods, or molecular clocks, are the primary neontological tool for estimating the temporal origins of clades. While the appropriate use of vertebrate fossils as external clock calibrations has stimulated heated discussions in the paleontological community, less attention has been given to the quality and implementation of other calibration types. In lieu of appropriate fossils, many studies rely on alternative sources of age constraints based on geological events, substitution rates and heterochronous sampling, as well as dates secondarily derived from previous analyses. To illustrate the breadth and frequency of calibration types currently employed, we conducted a literature survey of over 600 articles published from 2007 to 2013. Over half of all analyses implemented one or more fossil dates as constraints, followed by geological events and secondary calibrations (15% each). Vertebrate taxa were subjects in nearly half of all studies, while invertebrates and plants together accounted for 43%, followed by viruses, protists and fungi (3% each). Current patterns in calibration practices were disproportionate to the number of discussions on their proper use, particularly regarding plants and secondarily derived dates, which are both relatively neglected in methodological evaluations. Based on our survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of the latest approaches in clock calibration, and outline strengths and weaknesses associated with each. This critique should serve as a call to action for researchers across multiple communities, particularly those working on clades for which fossil records are poor, to develop their own guidelines regarding selection and implementation of alternative calibration types. This issue is particularly relevant now, as time-calibrated phylogenies are used for more than dating evolutionary origins, but often serve as the backbone of investigations into biogeography, diversity dynamics and rates of phenotypic evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Belgium 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 227 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 26%
Researcher 40 16%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 38 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 140 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 10%
Environmental Science 12 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 46 19%
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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#13,826,324
of 24,469,913 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#2,834
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,891
of 231,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#55
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,469,913 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 13,186 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 231,065 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.