Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 676

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating divergence times in large molecular phylogenies

Open access
Tamura, Koichiro, Battistuzzi, Fabia Ursula, Billing-Ross, Paul, Murillo, Oscar, Filipski, Alan, Kumar, Sudhir·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Molecular dating of species divergences has become an important means to add a temporal dimension to the Tree of Life. Increasingly larger datasets encompassing greater taxonomic diversity are becoming available to generate molecular timetrees by using sophisticated methods that model rate variation among lineages. However, the practical application of these methods is challenging because of the exorbitant calculation times required by current methods for contemporary data sizes, the difficulty in correctly modeling the rate heterogeneity in highly diverse taxonomic groups, and the lack of reliable clock calibrations and their uncertainty distributions for most groups of species. Here, we present a method that estimates relative times of divergences for all branching points (nodes) in very large phylogenetic trees without assuming a specific model for lineage rate variation or specifying any clock calibrations. The method (RelTime) performed better than existing methods when applied to very large computer simulated datasets where evolutionary rates were varied extensively among lineages by following autocorrelated and uncorrelated models. On average, RelTime completed calculations 1,000 times faster than the fastest Bayesian method, with even greater speed difference for larger number of sequences. This speed and accuracy will enable molecular dating analysis of very large datasets. Relative time estimates will be useful for determining the relative ordering and spacing of speciation events, identifying lineages with significantly slower or faster evolutionary rates, diagnosing the effect of selected calibrations on absolute divergence times, and estimating absolute times of divergence when highly reliable calibration points are available.

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.1213199109

Cites

41 of 41 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 41 references

Cited by

See all 676

Metadata

Authors
Tamura, K., Battistuzzi, F. U., Billing-Ross, P., Murillo, O., Filipski, A., & Kumar, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-11-05
Volume
109
Issue
47
Pages
19333-19338
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1992566665
Cited by
676
References
41
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Estimating divergence times in large molecular phylogenies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1213199109
The paper
Tamura, K., Battistuzzi, F. U., Billing-Ross, P., Murillo, O., Filipski, A., & Kumar, S. (2012). Estimating divergence times in large molecular phylogenies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213199109

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.