Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phylogenomics and a posteriori data partitioning resolve the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation Malpighiales

Open access
Xi, Zhenxiang, Ruhfel, Brad R., Schaefer, Hanno, Amorim, André M., Sugumaran, M., Wurdack, Kenneth J., Endress, Peter K., Matthews, Merran L., Stevens, Peter F., Mathews, Sarah, Davis, Charles C.·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The angiosperm order Malpighiales includes ∼16,000 species and constitutes up to 40% of the understory tree diversity in tropical rain forests. Despite remarkable progress in angiosperm systematics during the last 20 y, relationships within Malpighiales remain poorly resolved, possibly owing to its rapid rise during the mid-Cretaceous. Using phylogenomic approaches, including analyses of 82 plastid genes from 58 species, we identified 12 additional clades in Malpighiales and substantially increased resolution along the backbone. This greatly improved phylogeny revealed a dynamic history of shifts in net diversification rates across Malpighiales, with bursts of diversification noted in the Barbados cherries (Malpighiaceae), cocas (Erythroxylaceae), and passion flowers (Passifloraceae). We found that commonly used a priori approaches for partitioning concatenated data in maximum likelihood analyses, by gene or by codon position, performed poorly relative to the use of partitions identified a posteriori using a Bayesian mixture model. We also found better branch support in trees inferred from a taxon-rich, data-sparse matrix, which deeply sampled only the phylogenetically critical placeholders, than in trees inferred from a taxon-sparse matrix with little missing data. Although this matrix has more missing data, our a posteriori partitioning strategy reduced the possibility of producing multiple distinct but equally optimal topologies and increased phylogenetic decisiveness, compared with the strategy of partitioning by gene. These approaches are likely to help improve phylogenetic resolution in other poorly resolved major clades of angiosperms and to be more broadly useful in studies across the Tree of Life.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1205818109

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Xi, Z., Ruhfel, B. R., Schaefer, H., Amorim, A. M., Sugumaran, M., Wurdack, K. J., Endress, P. K., Matthews, M. L., Stevens, P. F., Mathews, S., & Davis, C. C.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-10-08
Volume
109
Issue
43
Pages
17519-17524
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2005274174
Cited by
411
References
62
FWCI
27.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phylogenomics and a posteriori data partitioning resolve the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation Malpighiales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1205818109
The paper
Xi, Z., Ruhfel, B. R., Schaefer, H., Amorim, A. M., Sugumaran, M., Wurdack, K. J., Endress, P. K., Matthews, M. L., Stevens, P. F., Mathews, S., & Davis, C. C. (2012). Phylogenomics and a posteriori data partitioning resolve the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation Malpighiales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205818109

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.