The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes
Open accessAbstract
Phylogenomic studies have resolved countless branches of the tree of life, but remain strongly contradictory on certain, contentious relationships. Here, we use a maximum likelihood framework to quantify the distribution of phylogenetic signal among genes and sites for 17 contentious branches and 6 well-established control branches in plant, animal and fungal phylogenomic data matrices. We find that resolution in some of these 17 branches rests on a single gene or a few sites, and that removal of a single gene in concatenation analyses or a single site from every gene in coalescence-based analyses diminishes support and can alter the inferred topology. These results suggest that tiny subsets of very large data matrices drive the resolution of specific internodes, providing a dissection of the distribution of support and observed incongruence in phylogenomic analyses. We submit that quantifying the distribution of phylogenetic signal in phylogenomic data is essential for evaluating whether branches, especially contentious ones, are truly resolved. Finally, we offer one detailed example of such an evaluation for the controversy regarding the earliest-branching metazoan phylum, for which examination of the distributions of gene-wise and site-wise phylogenetic signal across eight data matrices consistently supports ctenophores as the sister group to all other metazoans.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In order to assess the robustness of our age estimates to a number of prior assumptions, we ran analyses under (1) an autocorrelated and an uncorrelated relaxed molecular-clock model – the former assuming that the rate of molecular evolution of a lineage is correlated with the rate of its mother lineage, the latter allowing completely independent rates from lineage to lineage; (2) three different”
From Dating early animal evolution using phylogenomic data (2017) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Use of other siteheterogeneous models that may not suffer from problems associated with CAT-F81 (see 24 and Supplementary Discussion) resulted in Ctenophora sister to all other animals 21 , consistent with our findings (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S1-S14) and those of two recent papers that employed novel methods 25,26 .”
From Ctenophore relationships and their placement as the sister group to all other animals (2017) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This approach has, conversely, revealed underlying support favouring Ctenophora sister4,40, but so far has only been performed under standard site-homogeneous models.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Here, we have consolidated these findings by directly showing that the primary remaining lines of evidence supporting Ctenophora sister, partitioned phylogenomics4,7 and measures of underlying support (such as ΔPSlnl values)4,40, do not do so when better-fitting site-heterogeneous models are incorporated into the analysis.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This strategy has previously shown support for Ctenophora sister, in the form of a greater proportion of sites and gene partitions favouring comb jellies over sponges as the sister group to other animals4,40.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Quantifying and comparing support for alternative hypotheses for a given gene/site allows for dissection of the signal favouring one hypothesis or another in a dataset, and our results reject previous studies taking this approach that have found support for the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis4,40.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These irreversible FWM events provided powerful phylogenomic markers (97), offering strong evidence for resolving the long-debated relationships (104, 105) between ctenophores, sponges, and the rest of Metazoa.”
From Topological Approaches in Animal Comparative Genomics (2026) · cites this paper as [105]
In the citing paper
“Importantly, some of the differences between the results of RAxML/ExaML and IQ-TREE correspond to contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies (e.g., in data set ChenA4: The relative positions of pigeon, falcon, and other Neoaves; and in data set WickD3a: The relationships between Chloranthales, Eudicots, and Magnoliids) (Shen et al. 2017).”
From Evaluating fast maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic programs using empirical phylogenomic data sets (2018) · cites this paper as Shen et al. 2017
In the citing paper
“Shen et al. [11] generated datasets that excluded the few genes that they identified as ''outliers,''”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“analyzed these datasets under LG+G, and found support for Ctenophora-sister”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“This result rejects the conclusions of [11] that signal for Porifera-sister is limited to ''outlier genes'' and indicates that their approach is model dependent: arguments about model adequacy should be considered when implementing it.”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“LG+G was used by [11]”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Indeed, CAT-GTR+G analyses (with and without Dayhoff-6 recoding) of a dataset of [10] from which [11] removed ''outlier genes'' still finds support for Porifera-sister (PP = 0.98 and PP = 0.99, respectively; Figures S3I and S3J).”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies
Stamatakis, A. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 · Cited by 32,291
IQ-TREE: A Fast and Effective Stochastic Algorithm for Estimating Maximum-Likelihood Phylogenies
Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A., & Minh, B. Q. (2015) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msu300 · Cited by 26,046
Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach.
Felsenstein, J. (1981) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01734359 · Cited by 14,571
Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics
Ihaka, R., & Gentleman, R. (1996) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 · Cited by 11,747
A Rapid Bootstrap Algorithm for the RAxML Web Servers
Stamatakis, A., Hoover, P., & Rougemont, J. (2008) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150802429642 · Cited by 7,028
An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection
Shimodaira, H. (2002) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150290069913 · Cited by 2,791
Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution
Misof, B., Liu, S., Meusemann, K., Peters, R. S., Donath, A., Mayer, C., Frandsen, P. B., Ware, J., Flouri, T., Beutel, R. G., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257570 · Cited by 2,694
CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection
Shimodaira, H., & Hasegawa, M. (2001) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1246 · Cited by 2,049
Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent
Degnan, J. H., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,978
Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life
Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Matus, D. Q., Pang, K., Browne, W. E., Smith, S. A., Seaver, E., Rouse, G. W., Obst, M., Edgecombe, G. D., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06614 · Cited by 1,921
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Borowiec, M. L., Lee, E. K., Chiu, J. C. & Plachetzki, D. C. Extracting phylogenetic signal and accounting for bias in whole-genome data sets supports the Ctenophora as sister to remaining Metazoa. BMC Genomics 16, 987 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 524
Uneven Missing Data Skew Phylogenomic Relationships within the Lories and Lorikeets
Smith, B. T., Mauck, W. M., Benz, B. W., & Andersen, M. J. (2020) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evaa113 · Cited by 72
TAPER: Pinpointing errors in multiple sequence alignments despite varying rates of evolution
Zhang, C., Zhao, Y., Braun, E. L., & Mirarab, S. (2021) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13696 · Cited by 72
A Practical Guide to Design and Assess a Phylogenomic Study
Lozano-Fernández, J. (2022) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evac129 · Cited by 73
Inadvertent Paralog Inclusion Drives Artifactual Topologies and Timetree Estimates in Phylogenomics
Siu-Ting, K., Torres‐Sánchez, M., Mauro, D. S., Wilcockson, D. C., Wilkinson, M., Pisani, D., O’Connell, M. J., & Creevey, C. J. (2019) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msz067 · Cited by 68
The evolution of endoparasitism and complex life cycles in parasitic platyhelminths
Brabec, J., Salomaki, E. D., Kolísko, M., Scholz, T., & Kuchta, R. (2023) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.064 · Cited by 67
The Fungal Tree of Life: From Molecular Systematics to Genome-Scale Phylogenies
Spatafora, J. W., Aime, M. C., Grigoriev, I. V., Martin, F. M., Stajich, J., & Blackwell, M. (2017) · ASM Press eBooks · doi:10.1128/9781555819583.ch1 · Cited by 70
Walker, J. F., Yang, Y. J., Moore, M. J., Mikenas, J. D., Timoneda, A., Brockington, S. F., & Smith, S. A. (2017) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.1700083 · Cited by 65
Reanalyzing the Palaeoptera problem – The origin of insect flight remains obscure
Simon, S., Blanke, A., & Meusemann, K. (2018) · Arthropod Structure & Development · doi:10.1016/j.asd.2018.05.002 · Cited by 65
Dissecting Incongruence between Concatenation- and Quartet-Based Approaches in Phylogenomic Data
Shen, X., Steenwyk, J. L., & Rokas, A. (2021) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syab011 · Cited by 69
Self-citationZhou, X., Lutteropp, S., Czech, L., Stamatakis, A., von Looz, M., & Rokas, A. (2019) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syz058 · Cited by 66
Self-citationSinghal, S., Colston, T. J., Grundler, M. R., Smith, S. A., Costa, G. C., Colli, G. R., Moritz, C. C., Pyron, R. A., & Rabosky, D. L. (2020) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaa054 · Cited by 64
Salomaki, E. D., Terpis, K. X., Rueckert, S., Kotyk, M., Varadínová, Z. K., Čepička, I., Lane, C. E., & Kolísko, M. (2021) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-021-01007-2 · Cited by 65
Monophyletic blowflies revealed by phylogenomics
Yan, L., Pape, T., Meusemann, K., Kutty, S. N., Meier, R., Bayless, K. M., & Zhang, D. (2021) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-021-01156-4 · Cited by 65
Libkind, D., Čadež, N., Opulente, D. A., Langdon, Q. K., Rosa, C. A., Sampaio, J. P., Gonçalves, P. M., Hittinger, C. T., & Lachance, M. (2020) · FEMS Yeast Research · doi:10.1093/femsyr/foaa042 · Cited by 62
Self-citationPhylogenomic Signatures of Ancient Introgression in a Rogue Lineage of Darters (Teleostei: Percidae)
MacGuigan, D. J., & Near, T. J. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy074 · Cited by 61
Ballesteros, J. A., Santibáñez‐López, C. E., Kováč, Ľ., Gavish‐Regev, E., & Sharma, P. P. (2019) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2426 · Cited by 60
Shang, H., Jia, K., Li, N., Zhou, M., Yang, H., Tian, X., Ma, Y., & Zhang, R. (2024) · Horticulture Research · doi:10.1093/hr/uhae330 · Cited by 59
Beyond Drosophila: resolving the rapid radiation of schizophoran flies with phylotranscriptomics
Bayless, K. M., Trautwein, M., Meusemann, K., Shin, S., Petersen, M., Donath, A., Podsiadłowski, L., Mayer, C., Niehuis, O., Peters, R. S., et al. (2021) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-020-00944-8 · Cited by 63
Evolutionary origin of synapses and neurons – Bridging the gap
Burkhardt, P., & Sprecher, S. G. (2017) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201700024 · Cited by 60
Karin, B. R., Gamble, T., & Jackman, T. R. (2019) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msz263 · Cited by 61
The Role of Homology and Orthology in the Phylogenomic Analysis of Metazoan Gene Content
Pett, W., Adamski, M., Adamska, M., Francis, W. R., Eitel, M., Pisani, D., & Wörheide, G. (2019) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msz013 · Cited by 57
Hilton, E. J., & Lavoué, S. (2018) · Neotropical Ichthyology · doi:10.1590/1982-0224-20180031 · Cited by 59
Targeted NGS for species level phylogenomics: “made to measure” or “one size fits all”?
Kadlec, M., Bellstedt, D. U., Maitre, N. C. L., & Pirie, M. D. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3569 · Cited by 57
Knowles, L. L., Huang, H., Sukumaran, J., & Smith, S. A. (2018) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1064 · Cited by 58
Collapsing dubiously resolved gene-tree branches in phylogenomic coalescent analyses
Simmons, M. P., & Gatesy, J. (2021) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107092 · Cited by 50
Paetzold, C., Wood, K. R., Eaton, D. A. R., Wagner, W. L., & Appelhans, M. S. (2019) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01074 · Cited by 56
Parks, M., Wickett, N. J., & Alverson, A. J. (2017) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msx268 · Cited by 52
Conflicting phylogenetic signals in plastomes of the tribe Laureae (Lauraceae)
Xiao, T., Xu, Y., Jin, L., Liu, T.-J., Yan, H., & Ge, X. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.10155 · Cited by 53
Naser-Khdour, S., Bui, M., & Lanfear, R. (2021) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syab067 · Cited by 53
Dornburg, A., Su, Z. T., & Townsend, J. P. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy047 · Cited by 49
Neuromuscular organization of the Ctenophore Pleurobrachia bachei
Norekian, T. P., & Moroz, L. L. (2018) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.24546 · Cited by 52
Under the rug: Abandoning persistent misconceptions that obfuscate organelle evolution
Gonçalves, D. J. P., Jansen, R. K., Ruhlman, T. A., & Mandel, J. R. (2020) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106903 · Cited by 53
Phylogenomic Insights into the Origin of Primary Plastids
Irisarri, I., Strassert, J. F. H., & Burki, F. (2021) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syab036 · Cited by 54
Hernandez, A. M., & Ryan, J. F. (2019) · doi:10.1101/729103 · Cited by 52
Anomalous Phylogenetic Behavior of Ribosomal Proteins in Metagenome-Assembled Asgard Archaea.
Garg, S., Kapust, N., Lin, W.-L., Knopp, M., Tria, F. D. K., Nelson-Sathi, S., Gould, S., Fan, L., Zhu, R.-X., Zhang, C.-L. L., et al. (2020) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evaa238 · Cited by 17
Guo, X., Mandáková, T. M., Trachtová, K., Özüdoğru, B., Liu, J., & Lysák, M. A. (2020) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa327 · Cited by 50
Rota, J., Twort, V., Chiocchio, A., Peña, C., Wheat, C. W., Kaila, L., & Wahlberg, N. (2022) · Systematic Entomology · doi:10.1111/syen.12545 · Cited by 49
McLay, T. G. B., Fowler, R. M., Fahey, P. S., Murphy, D. J., Udovicic, F., Cantrill, D. J., & Bayly, M. J. (2023) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107869 · Cited by 51
Beaulieu, J. M., & O’Meara, B. C. (2018) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1020 · Cited by 49
Rooting Phylogenies and the Tree of Life While Minimizing Ad Hoc and Auxiliary Assumptions
Caetano‐Anollés, G., Nasir, A., Kim, K. M., & Caetano-Anollés, D. (2018) · Evolutionary Bioinformatics · doi:10.1177/1176934318805101 · Cited by 50
A Screen for Gene Paralogies Delineating Evolutionary Branching Order of Early Metazoa
Erives, A., & Fritzsch, B. (2020) · G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics · doi:10.1534/g3.119.400951 · Cited by 49
The dynamics of introgression across an avian radiation
Singhal, S., Derryberry, G. E., Bravo, G. A., Derryberry, E. P., Brumfield, R. T., & Harvey, M. G. (2021) · Evolution Letters · doi:10.1002/evl3.256 · Cited by 48
Genome-level analyses resolve an ancient lineage of symbiotic ascomycetes
Díaz-Escandón, D., Tagirdzhanova, G. M., Vanderpool, D., Allen, C. C. G., Aptroot, A., Češka, O., Hawksworth, D. L., Huereca, A., Knudsen, K., Kocourková, J., et al. (2022) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.11.014 · Cited by 49
Evaluating UCE Data Adequacy and Integrating Uncertainty in a Comprehensive Phylogeny of Ants
Borowiec, M. L., Zhang, Y. M., Neves, K., Ramalho, M. O., Fisher, B. L., Lucky, A., & Moreau, C. S. (2025) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaf001 · Cited by 51
Kusy, D., Motyka, M., Boček, M., Vogler, A. P., & Bocák, L. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35328-0 · Cited by 54
Phylogenomic analyses of echinoid diversification prompt a re-evaluation of their fossil record
Koch, N. M., Thompson, J. R., Hiley, A. S., McCowin, M. F., Armstrong, A. F., Coppard, S. E., Aguilera, F., Bronstein, O., Kroh, A., Mooi, R., et al. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.72460 · Cited by 48
Moore, A. J., de Vos, J. M., Hancock, L. P., Goolsby, E. W., & Edwards, E. J. (2017) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syx078 · Cited by 48
Phylogenomic analyses recover a clade of large-bodied decapodiform cephalopods
Anderson, F. E., & Lindgren, A. R. (2020) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.107038 · Cited by 51
The promise and pitfalls of synteny in phylogenomics
Steenwyk, J. L., & King, N. (2024) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002632 · Cited by 49
Zhang, J., Lindsey, A. R. I., Peters, R. S., Heraty, J. M., Hopper, K. R., Werren, J. H., Martinson, E. O., Woolley, J. B., Yoder, M. J., & Krogmann, L. (2020) · Systematic Entomology · doi:10.1111/syen.12427 · Cited by 45
An Evolving View of Phylogenetic Support
Simon, C. (2020) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaa068 · Cited by 50
Moroz, L. L. (2018) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00100 · Cited by 41
Pârvulescu, L. (2019) · Zoologischer Anzeiger · doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2019.01.006 · Cited by 43
Gatesy, J., Sloan, D. B., Warren, J. M., Baker, R. H., Simmons, M. P., & Springer, M. S. (2018) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106539 · Cited by 43
Karbstein, K., Tomasello, S., Hodač, L., Dunkel, F. G., Daubert, M., & Hörandl, E. (2020) · Taxon · doi:10.1002/tax.12365 · Cited by 43
Species Tree Estimation Using ASTRAL: Practical ConsiderationsPreprint
Mirarab, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.03826 · Cited by 43
Scaphopoda is the sister taxon to Bivalvia: Evidence of ancient incomplete lineage sorting
Song, H., Wang, Y., Shao, H., Li, Z., Hu, P., Yap-Chiongco, M. K., Shi, P., Zhang, T., Li, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2302361120 · Cited by 48
Xue, T., Janssens, S., Liu, B., & Yu, S. (2023) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107956 · Cited by 44
Neural system and receptor diversity in the ctenophore Beroe abyssicola
Norekian, T. P., & Moroz, L. L. (2019) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.24633 · Cited by 41
When good mitochondria go bad: Cyto-nuclear discordance in landfowl (Aves: Galliformes)
Kimball, R. T., Guido, M., Hosner, P. A., & Braun, E. L. (2021) · Gene · doi:10.1016/j.gene.2021.145841 · Cited by 39
Nolan, E. D., Santibáñez‐López, C. E., & Sharma, P. P. (2020) · Development Genes and Evolution · doi:10.1007/s00427-019-00644-6 · Cited by 41
Neumann, J. S., DeSalle, R., Narechania, A., Schierwater, B., & Tessler, M. (2020) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaa038 · Cited by 42
The lemur baseline: how lemurs compare to monkeys and apes in the Primate Cognition Test Battery
Fichtel, C., Dinter, K., & Kappeler, P. M. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.10025 · Cited by 46
Norekian, T. P., & Moroz, L. L. (2019) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.24770 · Cited by 40
Chan, K. O., Hutter, C. R., Wood, P. L., Grismer, L. L., & Brown, R. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.2102 · Cited by 40
Alda, F., Ludt, W. B., Elías, D. J., McMahan, C. D., & Chakrabarty, P. (2021) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evab161 · Cited by 40
Juravel, K., Porras, L., Höhna, S., Pisani, D., & Wörheide, G. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282444 · Cited by 38
Koch, N. M., & Gauthier, J. A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202729 · Cited by 38
Jones, K. E., Fér, T., Schmickl, R., Dikow, R. B., Funk, V. A., Herrando‐Moraira, S., Johnston, P. R., Kilian, N., Siniscalchi, C. M., Susanna, A., et al. (2019) · Applications in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1002/aps3.11295 · Cited by 37
A region of suppressed recombination misleads neoavian phylogenomics
Mirarab, S., Rivas-González, I., Feng, S., Stiller, J., Fang, Q., Mai, U., Hickey, G., Chen, G., Brajuka, N., Fedrigo, O. D., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2319506121 · Cited by 35
Maximizing Power in Phylogenetics and Phylogenomics: A Perspective Illuminated by Fungal Big Data
Dornburg, A., Townsend, J. P., & Wang, Z. (2017) · Advances in genetics · doi:10.1016/bs.adgen.2017.09.007 · Cited by 39
Tallec, K., Huvet, A., Yeuch, V., Goïc, N. L., & Paul-Pont, I. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127883 · Cited by 38
A chromosome-scale genome assembly and karyotype of the ctenophore Hormiphora californensis
Schultz, D. T., Francis, W. R., McBroome, J. D., Christianson, L. M., Haddock, S. H. D., & Green, R. E. (2021) · G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics · doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkab302 · Cited by 35
Reference Genome Choice and Filtering Thresholds Jointly Influence Phylogenomic Analyses
Rick, J. A., Brock, C. D., Lewanski, A. L., Golcher‐Benavides, J., & Wagner, C. E. (2023) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syad065 · Cited by 42
A roadmap for global synthesis of the plant tree of life
Eiserhardt, W. L., Antonelli, A., Bennett, D. J., Botigué, L. R., Burleigh, J. G., Dodsworth, S., Enquist, B. J., Forest, F., Kim, J. T., Kozlov, A. M., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1041 · Cited by 35
Kallal, R. J., Fernández, R., Giribet, G., & Hormiga, G. (2018) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2018.04.007 · Cited by 35
Baker, C. M., Boyer, S. L., & Giribet, G. (2020) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.13828 · Cited by 34
Heterothallism and potential hybridization events inferred for twenty-two yellow morel species
Du, X.-H., Wu, D., Kang, H., Wang, H., Xu, N., Li, T., & Chen, K. (2020) · IMA Fungus · doi:10.1186/s43008-020-0027-1 · Cited by 34
Schneider, J. V., Paule, J., Jungcurt, T., Cardoso, D., Amorim, A. M., Berberich, T., & Zizka, G. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.638650 · Cited by 34
Lindgren, A. R., & Anderson, F. E. (2017) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2017.10.004 · Cited by 37
Still Enigmatic: Innate Immunity in the Ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi
Traylor‐Knowles, N., Vandepas, L. E., & Browne, W. E. (2019) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/icz116 · Cited by 33
Banker, S. E., Lemmon, A. R., Hassinger, A. T. B., Dye, M., Holland, S. D., Kortyna, M., Ospina, O. E., Ralicki, H. F., & Lemmon, E. M. (2019) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syz074 · Cited by 33
Sharma, P. P., Ballesteros, J. A., & Santibáñez‐López, C. E. (2021) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d13110568 · Cited by 33
Hughes, L. C., Nash, C. M., White, W. T., & Westneat, M. W. (2022) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syac072 · Cited by 34
A taxon-rich and genome-scale phylogeny of Opisthokonta
Liu, H., Steenwyk, J. L., Zhou, X., Schultz, D. T., Kocot, K. M., Shen, X., Rokas, A., & Li, Y. (2024) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002794 · Cited by 41
Self-citationLiu, S., Yang, Y., Tian, Q., Yang, Z., Li, S., Valdes, P. J., Farnsworth, A., Kates, H. R., Siniscalchi, C. M., Guralnick, R., et al. (2024) · Journal of Integrative Plant Biology · doi:10.1111/jipb.13773 · Cited by 32
Li, X., Feng, T., Randle, C., & Schneeweiss, G. M. (2019) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00902 · Cited by 32
Hurt, C. R., Hultgren, K. M., Anker, A., Lemmon, A. R., Lemmon, E. M., & Bracken‐Grissom, H. D. (2021) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107080 · Cited by 36
Recombination Variation Shapes Phylogeny and Introgression in Wild Diploid Strawberries
Feng, C., Wang, J., Liston, A., & Kang, M. (2023) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msad049 · Cited by 29
Phylogenomic Analysis of a Putative Missing Link Sparks Reinterpretation of Leech Evolution
Phillips, A. J., Dornburg, A., Zapfe, K. L., Anderson, F. E., James, S. W., Erséus, C., Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., & Williams, B. W. (2019) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evz120 · Cited by 33
Reticulate evolution: Detection and utility in the phylogenomics era
Bjornson, S., Verbruggen, H., Upham, N. S., & Steenwyk, J. L. (2024) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108197 · Cited by 36
Pandey, A., & Braun, E. L. (2020) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology9040064 · Cited by 30
Very few sites can reshape the inferred phylogenetic tree
Francis, W. R., & Canfield, D. E. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.8865 · Cited by 30
Steenwyk, J. L., Shen, X., Lind, A., Goldman, G. H., & Rokas, A. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/370429 · Cited by 31
Self-citationA Phylogenomic Backbone for Gastropod Molluscs
Uribe, J. E., González, V. L., Irisarri, I., Kano, Y., Herbert, D. G., Strong, E. E., & Harasewych, M. G. (2022) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syac045 · Cited by 28
Lineage diversity in a widely distributed New World passerine bird, the House Wren
Klicka, J., Epperly, K., Smith, B. T., Spellman, G. M., Chaves, J. A., Escalante, P., Witt, C. C., Canales-del-Castillo, R., & Zink, R. M. (2023) · The Auk · doi:10.1093/ornithology/ukad018 · Cited by 29
Accelerated Estimation of Frequency Classes in Site-Heterogeneous Profile Mixture Models
Susko, E., Lincker, L., & Roger, A. J. (2018) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msy026 · Cited by 29
Reconsidering cytonuclear discordance in the genomic age
Larson, D. A., Itgen, M. W., Denton, R. D., & Hahn, M. W. (2025) · Evolution · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpaf201 · Cited by 34
Mulhair, P. O., McCarthy, C. G. P., Siu-Ting, K., Creevey, C. J., & O’Connell, M. J. (2022) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.10.036 · Cited by 28
Adams, R. H. J., Schield, D. R., Card, D. C., & Castoe, T. A. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy034 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Shen, X.-X., Hittinger, C. T., & Rokas, A.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rokas, Antonis
- Venue
- Nature Ecology & Evolution
- Published
- 2017-04-10
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 126-126
- ISSN
- 2397-334X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5560076
- OpenAlex
- W2607411230
- Semantic Scholar
- 1a74377821782786bf6787cb988e289469f977ac
- Cited by
- 520
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 41
- FWCI
- 29.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1442148, BER DE-FC02-07ER64494, 1003258, 1442113)
- U.S. Department of Energy (FC02-07ER64494, 07ER64494, DEFC0207ER64494, BER DE‐FC02‐07ER64494)
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (DE-FC02-07ER64494)
- Vanderbilt University
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Food and Agriculture (1003258, DE-FC02-07ER64494)
- Office of Science (BER DE-FC02-07ER64494, FC02-07ER64494, DEFC0207ER64494)
- Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (BER-DE-FC02-07ER64494, DE‐FC02‐07ER64494)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI105619, R21AI105619)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Protist diversity and phylogeny
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Keywords
- phylogenetic incongruence, ctenophores, phylogenomics, phylogenetic support
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
