Cited by 144Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesProtist diversity and phylogenyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

The impact of fossils and taxon sampling on ancient molecular dating analyses

Open access
Hug, Laura A., Roger, Andrew J.·2007·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

The number and complexity of molecular dating studies has increased over the past decade. Along with a broadening acceptance of their utility has come significant controversy over the methods and models that are appropriate, as well as the accuracy of the estimates yielded by molecular clock analyses. Radically different age estimates have been published for the same divergences from analyses of different datasets with different fossil constraints obtained with different methods, and the underlying explanation for these differences is often unclear. Here we utilize two previously published datasets to examine the effect of fossil calibrations and taxon sampling on the age estimates for two deep eukaryote divergences in an attempt to discern the relative impact of these factors. Penalized likelihood, non-parametric rate smoothing, and Bayesian methods were utilized to generate age estimates for the origin of the Metazoa from a 7-gene dataset and for the divergence of Eukaryotes from a 129-gene dataset. From these analyses, it is clear that the fossil calibrations chosen and the method for applying constraints to these nodes have a large impact on age estimates, while the degree of taxon sampling within a dataset is less important in terms of the resulting age estimates. Concerns and recommendations for addressing these two factors when initiating a dating analysis are discussed.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/msm115

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Few studies have considered the cumulative impact of uncertainties on the precision of evolutionary timescales.

    “Yet, few studies have considered the cumulative impact of these uncertainties on the precision of evolutionary timescales (e.g., [45, 46]).”

    From Uncertainty in the Timing of Origin of Animals and the Limits of Precision in Molecular Timescales (2015) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says that few studies examine how fossil constraints affect age estimates and that the error from those constraints is generally ignored or unreported. The paper also examines fossil calibrations and taxon sampling together, but it does not establish the broader claim that few studies have considered the cumulative impact of uncertainties on the precision of evolutionary timescales. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hug, L. A., & Roger, A. J.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2007-06-07
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
1889-1897
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2164727170
Cited by
144
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Killam Trusts
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (62809, MOP62809)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (227085-2005)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
fossil calibration, taxon sampling, divergence time estimation, eukaryotic origin, penalized likelihood, Bayesian phylogenetics, molecular clock
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Eukaryotic Cells, Fossils, Invertebrates, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Genetic Variation, Likelihood Functions, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Evolution, Molecular

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