Cited by 615Evolution and Genetic DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 98 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The modern molecular clock

Bromham, Lindell, Penny, David·2003·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

The discovery of the molecular clock--a relatively constant rate of molecular evolution--provided an insight into the mechanisms of molecular evolution, and created one of the most useful new tools in biology. The unexpected constancy of rate was explained by assuming that most changes to genes are effectively neutral. Theory predicts several sources of variation in the rate of molecular evolution. However, even an approximate clock allows time estimates of events in evolutionary history, which provides a method for testing a wide range of biological hypotheses ranging from the origins of the animal kingdom to the emergence of new viral epidemics.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The molecular clock—a relatively constant rate of molecular evolution—was unexpected but is broadly explained by neutral and nearly neutral theory, and it provides a universal tool for dating evolutionary events. However, the clock is “sloppy” and rates vary among lineages, so molecular dates must be treated with appropriate confidence intervals and caution.

Key findings

  • Zuckerkandl and Pauling found a strikingly linear accumulation of amino-acid differences over evolutionary time, with each protein having a characteristic rate: histones were exceptionally slow, cytochrome c was faster but slower than haemoglobins, and fibrinopeptides were faster still; Kimura and Ohta explained this by suggesting most amino-acid changes are effectively neutral.
  • Rate variation arises through mutation rate, population size, and selective coefficients; examples include murid rodents evolving two to three times faster than hominid primates, and HIV evolving around a million times faster than mammalian genomes.
  • Molecular dates can conflict with fossil dates: molecular dates for the origins of animal phyla and orders of mammals and birds are generally twice as old as fossil dates, and published molecular dates for the rodent–primate split vary by as much as 100%.
  • A practical application: molecular clock dates place the last common ancestor of the main pandemic HIV strain in the 1930s, countering claims that the virus spread through contaminated polio vaccine in the 1950s.

Methods

  • Review article synthesizing the history, theory, and methods of molecular dating; no new primary data or analyses are presented.
  • Discusses calibration approaches (fossil record, biogeography, sample dates for viruses), substitution models, and clock tests (relative rates test, Tajima test, likelihood ratio test), plus maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods.
  • Uses examples from proteins, Hawaiian island birds and fruitflies, vertebrates, and viruses to illustrate rate constancy and variation.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the molecular clock is probabilistic and “sloppy,” with overdispersed substitution intervals adding large confidence intervals; lineage effects can systematically bias date estimates.
  • It notes operational errors: uncertain phylogenies, calibration-point errors, and biased genetic-distance estimates; clock tests lack power for shorter or slowly evolving sequences.
  • It states that few studies present confidence intervals that accurately portray clock variance, and that molecular dates are often point estimates; as a review, it does not resolve these issues with new data (evident from text).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg1020

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 98 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 54 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 27
40 of 40
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Molecular dates are frequently presented as point estimates, or with sample errors that represent the difference between estimates in the same study.

    “Part of the difficulty of assessing the reliability of molecular clocks is that molecular dates are frequently presented as point estimates, or with sample errors that represent the difference between estimates in the same study.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few studies present molecular date estimates with confidence intervals that accurately portray the variance in the clock due to the sloppiness of the tick rate, or the lineage variation in rates.

    “Few studies present molecular date estimates with confidence intervals that accurately portray the variance in the clock due to the sloppiness of the tick rate, or the lineage variation in rates.”
2 of 2

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Nearly neutral and effectively neutral categories overlap

    Minor

    The stated inequality for nearly neutral mutations includes values below 0.2, which the next category also classifies as effectively neutral. The categories therefore overlap rather than defining separate ranges.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 74 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Zuckerkandl, E. & Pauling, L. in Horizons in Biochemistry (eds Kasha, M. & Pullman, B.) 189–225 (Academic Press, New York, 1962).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 615

Metadata

Authors
Bromham, L., & Penny, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Allan Wilson Centre (NZ)
Corresponding author
Bromham, Lindell
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2003-03
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
216-224
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W2062220010
Cited by
615
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 27
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
molecular clock, molecular evolution rate, neutral theory of molecular evolution, rate variation, divergence time estimation, evolutionary history, viral epidemics
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Outbreaks, DNA, Genetics, Population, Humans, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Population Density, Proteins, Selection, Genetic, Time Factors, Evolution, Molecular, Communicable Diseases, Emerging, History, Ancient

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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