Cited by 168Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Paleontology StudiesGenetic diversity and population structure

The Power of Relative Rates Tests Depends on the Data

Bromham, Lindell, Penny, David, Rambaut, Andrew, Hendy, Michael D.·2000·Journal of Molecular Evolution

Abstract

One of the most useful features of molecular phylogenetic analyses is the potential for estimating dates of divergence of evolutionary lineages from the DNA of extant species. But lineage-specific variation in rate of molecular evolution complicates molecular dating, because a calibration rate estimated from one lineage may not be an accurate representation of the rate in other lineages. Many molecular dating studies use a "clock test" to identify and exclude sequences that vary in rate between lineages. However, these clock tests should not be relied upon without a critical examination of their effectiveness at removing rate variable sequences from any given data set, particularly with regard to the sequence length and number of variable sites. As an illustration of this problem we present a power test of a frequently employed triplet relative rates test. We conclude that (1) relative rates tests are unlikely to detect moderate levels of lineage-specific rate variation (where one lineage has a rate of molecular evolution 1.5 to 4.0 times the other) for most commonly used sequences in molecular dating analyses, and (2) this lack of power is likely to result in substantial error in the estimation of dates of divergence. As an example, we show that the well-studied rate difference between murid rodents and great apes will not be detected for many of the sequences used to date the divergence between these two lineages and that this failure to detect rate variation is likely to result in consistent overestimation the date of the rodent-primate split.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s002399910034

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The variation in rate of molecular evolution between lineages warns against using a calibration rate calculated for one lineage to date another, often distantly related, lineage.

    “The variation in rate of molecular evolution between lineages warns against using a calibration rate calculated for one lineage to date another, often distantly related, lineage 1,28,48 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [28]

  • In this case, molecular date estimates could be systematically inaccurate.

    “In this case, molecular date estimates could be systematically inaccurate 28 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The nearly neutral theory predicts that the rate of molecular evolution is influenced by mutation rate, population size and the relative proportions of sites with different selective coefficients; these factors might differ between genes, between species and over time, potentially resulting in consistent bias in date estimates.

    “Second, the nearly neutral theory predicts that the rate of molecular evolution is influenced by mutation rate, population size and the relative proportions of sites with different selective coefficients; these factors might differ between genes, between species and over time, potentially resulting in consistent bias in date estimates 28 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Failure to detect rate variation can cause systematic error in date estimates, because undetected rate variation can lead to consistently overestimated dates of divergence.

    “Failure to detect rate variation can cause systematic error in date estimates, because undetected rate variation can lead to consistently overestimated dates of divergence 28 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [28]

  • If the genetic distance between rodents and primates is used to estimate their date of divergence by assuming a constant rate of molecular evolution, this rate difference can result in molecular dates that are consistently too old.

    “If the genetic distance between rodents and primates is used to estimate their date of divergence by assuming a constant rate of molecular evolution, this rate difference can result in molecular dates that are consistently too old 28 .”

    From The modern molecular clock (2003) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bromham, L., Penny, D., Rambaut, A., & Hendy, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Published
2000-03
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
296-301
ISSN
0022-2844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1480478228
Cited by
168
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
divergence time estimation, power analysis, murid rodents, great apes, sequence length, variable sites
MeSH terms
Genetic Variation, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review