The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
More Genes or More Taxa? The Relative Contribution of Gene Number and Taxon Number to Phylogenetic Accuracy
Open accessAbstract
The relative contribution of taxon number and gene number to accuracy in phylogenetic inference is a major issue in phylogenetics and of central importance to the choice of experimental strategies for the successful reconstruction of a broad sketch of the tree of life. Maximization of the number of taxa sampled is the strategy favored by most phylogeneticists, although its necessity remains the subject of debate. Vast increases in gene number are now possible due to advances in genomics, but large numbers of genes will be available for only modest numbers of taxa, raising the question of whether such genome-scale phylogenies will be robust to the addition of taxa. To examine the relative benefit of increasing taxon number or gene number to phylogenetic accuracy, we have developed an assay that utilizes the symmetric difference tree distance as a measure of phylogenetic accuracy. We have applied this assay to a genome-scale data matrix containing 106 genes from 14 yeast species. Our results show that increasing taxon number correlates with a slight decrease in phylogenetic accuracy. In contrast, increasing gene number has a significant positive effect on phylogenetic accuracy. Analyses of an additional taxon-rich data matrix from the same yeast clade show that taxon number does not have a significant effect on phylogenetic accuracy. The positive effect of gene number and the lack of effect of taxon number on phylogenetic accuracy are also corroborated by analyses of two data matrices from mammals and angiosperm plants, respectively. We conclude that, for typical data sets, the number of genes utilized may be a more important determinant of phylogenetic accuracy than taxon number.
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.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Dujon, B., Sherman, D., Fischer, G., Durrens, P., Casaregola, S., Lafontaine, I., de Montigny, J., Marck, C., Neuvéglise, C., Talla, E., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02579 · Cited by 1,623
Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies.
Rokas, A., Williams, B. L., King, N., & Carroll, S. B. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02053 · Cited by 1,512
Self-citationStatistical tests of models of DNA substitution
Goldman, N. (1993) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf00166252 · Cited by 736
Peterson, K. J., & Eernisse, D. J. (2001) · Evolution & Development · doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003003170.x · Cited by 529 · cited 1×
“The standard approach in phylogenetics has been to reconstruct phylogenetic hypotheses by maximizing the number of taxa, utilizing one or a few genes (Baldauf et al. 2000; Peterson and Eernisse 2001; Moncalvo et al. 2002).”
BackgroundTesting the phylogenetic stability of early tetrapods
THORLEY, J. L., & WILKINSON, M. (1999) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1006/jtbi.1999.0999 · Cited by 99 · cited 1×
“A factor known to generate instability in phylogenetic inference is the use of specific taxa (Thorley and Wilkinson 1999; Sanderson and Shaffer 2002).”
Background
Cited by
Phylogenomics: The beginning of incongruence?
JEFFROY, O., BRINKMANN, H., DELSUC, F., & PHILIPPE, H. (2006) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2006.02.003 · Cited by 698
Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals
Salichos, L., & Rokas, A. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12130 · Cited by 616
Self-citationContentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes
Shen, X.-X., Hittinger, C. T., & Rokas, A. (2017) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0126 · Cited by 520
Self-citationImproved phylogenomic taxon sampling noticeably affects nonbilaterian relationships
Pick, K. S., Philippe, H., Schreiber, F., Erpenbeck, D., Jackson, D. J., Wrede, P., Wiens, M., Alie, A., Morgenstern, B., Manuel, M., et al. (2010) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msq089 · Cited by 334
Rokas, A., & Carroll, S. B. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352 · Cited by 315
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rokas, A., & Carroll, S. B.
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-03-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1337-1344
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2138910980
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 12.45
- 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: More Genes or More Taxa? The Relative Contribution of Gene Number and Taxon Number to Phylogenetic Accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/molbev/msi121
- The paper
- Rokas, A., & Carroll, S. B. (2005). More Genes or More Taxa? The Relative Contribution of Gene Number and Taxon Number to Phylogenetic Accuracy. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msi121
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.