↓ Skip to main content

Potential for bias and low precision in molecular divergence time estimation of the Canopy of Life: an example from aquatic bird families

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
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
Potential for bias and low precision in molecular divergence time estimation of the Canopy of Life: an example from aquatic bird families
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcel van Tuinen, Christopher R. Torres

Abstract

Uncertainty in divergence time estimation is frequently studied from many angles but rarely from the perspective of phylogenetic node age. If appropriate molecular models and fossil priors are used, a multi-locus, partitioned analysis is expected to equally minimize error in accuracy and precision across all nodes of a given phylogeny. In contrast, if available models fail to completely account for rate heterogeneity, substitution saturation and incompleteness of the fossil record, uncertainty in divergence time estimation may increase with node age. While many studies have stressed this concern with regard to deep nodes in the Tree of Life, the inference that molecular divergence time estimation of shallow nodes is less sensitive to erroneous model choice has not been tested explicitly in a Bayesian framework. Because of available divergence time estimation methods that permit fossil priors across any phylogenetic node and the present increase in efficient, cheap collection of species-level genomic data, insight is needed into the performance of divergence time estimation of shallow (<10 MY) nodes. Here, we performed multiple sensitivity analyses in a multi-locus data set of aquatic birds with six fossil constraints. Comparison across divergence time analyses that varied taxon and locus sampling, number and position of fossil constraint and shape of prior distribution showed various insights. Deviation from node ages obtained from a reference analysis was generally highest for the shallowest nodes but determined more by temporal placement than number of fossil constraints. Calibration with only the shallowest nodes significantly underestimated the aquatic bird fossil record, indicating the presence of saturation. Although joint calibration with all six priors yielded ages most consistent with the fossil record, ages of shallow nodes were overestimated. This bias was found in both mtDNA and nDNA regions. Thus, divergence time estimation of shallow nodes may suffer from bias and low precision, even when appropriate fossil priors and best available substitution models are chosen. Much care must be taken to address the possible ramifications of substitution saturation across the entire Tree of Life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 29%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 53%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,397
of 12,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,862
of 267,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#75
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 267,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.