CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Evolution and Paleontology StudiesGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesPlant Diversity and Evolution

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Heterogeneous Models Place the Root of the Placental Mammal Phylogeny

Open access
Morgan, Claire C., Foster, Peter G., Webb, Andrew E., Pisani, Davide, McInerney, James O., O’Connell, Mary J.·2013·Molecular Biology and Evolution
DOI 10.1093/molbev/mst117PMC PMC3748356
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Heterogeneity among life traits in mammals has resulted in considerable phylogenetic conflict, particularly concerning the position of the placental root. Layered upon this are gene- and lineage-specific variation in amino acid substitution rates and compositional biases. Life trait variations that may impact upon mutational rates are longevity, metabolic rate, body size, and germ line generation time. Over the past 12 years, three main conflicting hypotheses have emerged for the placement of the placental root. These hypotheses place the Atlantogenata (common ancestor of Xenarthra plus Afrotheria), the Afrotheria, or the Xenarthra as the sister group to all other placental mammals. Model adequacy is critical for accurate tree reconstruction and by failing to account for these compositional and character exchange heterogeneities across the tree and data set, previous studies have not provided a strongly supported hypothesis for the placental root. For the first time, models that accommodate both tree and data set heterogeneity have been applied to mammal data. Here, we show the impact of accurate model assignment and the importance of data sets in accommodating model parameters while maintaining the power to reject competing hypotheses. Through these sophisticated methods, we demonstrate the importance of model adequacy, data set power and provide strong support for the Atlantogenata over other competing hypotheses for the position of the placental root.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/mst117

Cites

62 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Three major rooting hypotheses for placental mammals. The three major competing hypotheses for the position of the root are depicted. (A) The Afrotheria root, (B) the Xenarthra root, and (C) the Atlantogenata root.
Fig. 1. Three major rooting hypotheses for placental mammals. The three major competing hypotheses for the position of the root are depicted. (A) The Afrotheria root, (B) the Xenarthra root, and (C) the Atlantogenata root.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Fit of alternative models applied to 66TaxonSet_nuc, and posterior predictive simulations for the homogeneous model and heterogeneous model of “best-fit” for 66TaxonSet_nuc. Models are shown on x axis. The specifications of each model, that is, the number of rate matrices and composition vectors, are given inside the bar that represents that model. The y axis shows the ln L score, the higher the bar the worse the fit of the model. Inset (A) shows posterior predictive simulations for the homogeneous model (1GTR + 1C + I + 4Γ). Inset (B) shows posterior predictive simulation for the best-fit heterogeneous model (3GTR + 5C + I + 4Γ). The black bar graphs in insets (A) and (B) represent the posterior predictive simulations of these models on 66TaxonSet_nuc, and the arrow in each inset represents the χ2 position in the simulation for the real data.
Fig. 2. Fit of alternative models applied to 66TaxonSet_nuc, and posterior predictive simulations for the homogeneous model and heterogeneous model of “best-fit” for 66TaxonSet_nuc. Models are shown on x axis. The specifications of each model, that is, the number of rate matrices and composition vectors, are given inside the bar that represents that model. The y axis shows the ln L score, the higher the bar the worse the fit of the model. Inset (A) shows posterior predictive simulations for the homogeneous model (1GTR + 1C + I + 4Γ). Inset (B) shows posterior predictive simulation for the best-fit heterogeneous model (3GTR + 5C + I + 4Γ). The black bar graphs in insets (A) and (B) represent the posterior predictive simulations of these models on 66TaxonSet_nuc, and the arrow in each inset represents the χ2 position in the simulation for the real data.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Mammal phylogeny reconstructed using two independent approaches. Phylogeny reconstruction carried out using CAT-GTR model on the 39TaxonSet_aa in PhlyoBayes v3.2 and on 39TaxonSet_day using the heterogeneous model 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ in P4. The support values for both methods are given at each node: the numerator is the Bayesian support value for nodes based on CAT-GTR in PhyloBayes; the denominator is the support value based on the 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ model in P4. Support values for the 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ model are shown where they are in agreement with the CAT-GTR model topology. The color scheme represents the major groups of mammals: red, Euarchontoglires; blue, Laurasiatheria; green, Afrotheria; purple, Xenarthra; gray, Marsupials (* represents compositionally heterogeneous taxa). Gallus gallus and Ornithorhynchus anatinus were both compositionally heterogeneous but were excluded in this figure to retain clarity of placental mammal branch lengths.
Fig. 3. Mammal phylogeny reconstructed using two independent approaches. Phylogeny reconstruction carried out using CAT-GTR model on the 39TaxonSet_aa in PhlyoBayes v3.2 and on 39TaxonSet_day using the heterogeneous model 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ in P4. The support values for both methods are given at each node: the numerator is the Bayesian support value for nodes based on CAT-GTR in PhyloBayes; the denominator is the support value based on the 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ model in P4. Support values for the 2GTR + 4C + 4Γ model are shown where they are in agreement with the CAT-GTR model topology. The color scheme represents the major groups of mammals: red, Euarchontoglires; blue, Laurasiatheria; green, Afrotheria; purple, Xenarthra; gray, Marsupials (* represents compositionally heterogeneous taxa). Gallus gallus and Ornithorhynchus anatinus were both compositionally heterogeneous but were excluded in this figure to retain clarity of placental mammal branch lengths.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 63 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 123

Related

Metadata

Authors
Morgan, C. C., Foster, P. G., Webb, A. E., Pisani, D., McInerney, J. O., & O’Connell, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Dublin City University (IE)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
Corresponding author
O’Connell, Mary J.
ORCID
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-06-29
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
2145-2156
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
DOI
10.1093/molbev/mst117
PMC
PMC3748356
OpenAlex
W2129747243
Cited by
123
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4
FWCI
10.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • US-UK Fulbright Commission
  • Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
  • Science Foundation Ireland
  • Irish Research Council
  • Irish Centre for High-End Computing
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
Xenarthra, Afrotheria, phylogenetic conflict, compositional heterogeneity, amino acid substitution rates, model adequacy
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Mammals, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Placenta, Pregnancy, Recombination, Genetic, Genetic Heterogeneity, Evolution, Molecular, Amino Acid Substitution, Mutation Rate

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