Cited by 91Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic diversity and population structureEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

The impact of ancestral population size and incomplete lineage sorting on Bayesian estimation of species divergence times

Open access
Angelis, Konstantinos, Dos Reis, Mario·2015·Current Zoology

Abstract

Although the effects of the coalescent process on sequence divergence and genealogies are well understood, the virtual majority of studies that use molecular sequences to estimate times of divergence among species have failed to account for the coalescent process. Here we study the impact of ancestral population size and incomplete lineage sorting on Bayesian estimates of species divergence times under the molecular clock when the inference model ignores the coalescent process. Using a combination of mathematical analysis, computer simulations and analysis of real data, we find that the errors on estimates of times and the molecular rate can be substantial when ancestral populations are large and when there is substantial incomplete lineage sorting. For example, in a simple three-species case, we find that if the most precise fossil calibration is placed on the root of the phylogeny, the age of the internal node is overestimated, while if the most precise calibration is placed on the internal node, then the age of the root is underestimated. In both cases, the molecular rate is overestimated. Using simulations on a phylogeny of nine species, we show that substantial errors in time and rate estimates can be obtained even when dating ancient divergence events. We analyse the hominoid phylogeny and show that estimates of the neutral mutation rate obtained while ignoring the coalescent are too high. Using a coalescent-based technique to obtain geological times of divergence, we obtain estimates of the mutation rate that are within experimental estimates and we also obtain substantially older divergence times within the phylogeny.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/czoolo/61.5.874

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angelis, K., & Dos Reis, M.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Venue
Current Zoology
Published
2015-10-01
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
874-885
ISSN
  • 1674-5507 (ISSN-L)
  • 2396-9814
OpenAlex
W2310276538
Cited by
91
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Zoology (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
incomplete lineage sorting, ancestral population size, coalescent processes, molecular clock, fossil calibration, hominoid phylogeny

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