The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Delimiting Species Using Single-Locus Data and the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent Approach: A Revised Method and Evaluation on Simulated Data Sets
Open accessAbstract
DNA barcoding-type studies assemble single-locus data from large samples of individuals and species, and have provided new kinds of data for evolutionary surveys of diversity. An important goal of many such studies is to delimit evolutionarily significant species units, especially in biodiversity surveys from environmental DNA samples. The Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC) method is a likelihood method for delimiting species by fitting within- and between-species branching models to reconstructed gene trees. Although the method has been widely used, it has not previously been described in detail or evaluated fully against simulations of alternative scenarios of true patterns of population variation and divergence between species. Here, we present important reformulations to the GMYC method as originally specified, and demonstrate its robustness to a range of departures from its simplifying assumptions. The main factor affecting the accuracy of delimitation is the mean population size of species relative to divergence times between them. Other departures from the model assumptions, such as varying population sizes among species, alternative scenarios for speciation and extinction, and population growth or subdivision within species, have relatively smaller effects. Our simulations demonstrate that support measures derived from the likelihood function provide a robust indication of when the model performs well and when it leads to inaccurate delimitations. Finally, the so-called single-threshold version of the method outperforms the multiple-threshold version of the method on simulated data: we argue that this might represent a fundamental limit due to the nature of evidence used to delimit species in this approach. Together with other studies comparing its performance relative to other methods, our findings support the robustness of GMYC as a tool for delimiting species when only single-locus information is 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.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models
Stamatakis, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 · Cited by 15,582
Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the sargasso sea
Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J. F., Halpern, A. L., Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E., Nelson, W., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093857 · Cited by 4,376
The Theory of Stochastic Processes
Cox, D. R., Miller, H. D., Weiss, G., & Shuler, K. (1966) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3047872 · Cited by 3,324
DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling
Meyer, C. P., & Paulay, G. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030422 · Cited by 1,957
Sanderson, M. J. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.301 · Cited by 1,906
Bayesian species delimitation using multilocus sequence data
Yang, Z., & Rannala, B. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0913022107 · Cited by 1,405
Genealogical trees, coalescent theory and the analysis of genetic polymorphisms
Rosenberg, N. A., & Nordborg, M. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg795 · Cited by 750
Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage
Hailer, F., Kutschera, V. E., Hallström, B. M., Klassert, D., Fain, S. R., Leonard, J. A., Arnason, U., & Janke, A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1216424 · Cited by 308
Cited by
Recognition of seven species in the Cryptococcus gattii/Cryptococcus neoformans species complex
Hagen, F., Khayhan, K., Theelen, B., Kolecka, A., Polacheck, I., Sionov, E., Falk, R., Parnmen, S., Lumbsch, H. T., & Boekhout, T. (2015) · Fungal Genetics and Biology · doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2015.02.009 · Cited by 687
Classifying the evolutionary and ecological features of neoplasms
Maley, C. C., Aktipis, A., Graham, T. A., Sottoriva, A., Boddy, A. M., Janiszewska, M., Silva, A. S., Gerlinger, M., Yuan, Y., Pienta, K. J., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2017.69 · Cited by 423
Factors affecting species delimitations with the GMYC model: insights from a butterfly survey
Talavera, G., Dincă, V., & Vila, R. (2013) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12107 · Cited by 330
Guidelines for DNA taxonomy, with a focus on the meiofauna
Fontaneto, D., Flot, J.-F., & Tang, C. Q. (2015) · Marine Biodiversity · doi:10.1007/s12526-015-0319-7 · Cited by 276
Investigating species boundaries in Colletotrichum
Bhunjun, C. S., Phukhamsakda, C., Jayawardena, R. S., Jeewon, R., Promputtha, I., & Hyde, K. D. (2021) · Fungal Diversity · doi:10.1007/s13225-021-00471-z · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Fujisawa, T., & Barraclough, T. G.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-06-14
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 707-724
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2096241054
- Cited by
- 1,668
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 53.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Delimiting Species Using Single-Locus Data and the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent Approach: A Revised Method and Evaluation on Simulated Data Sets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syt033
- The paper
- Fujisawa, T., & Barraclough, T. G. (2013). Delimiting Species Using Single-Locus Data and the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent Approach: A Revised Method and Evaluation on Simulated Data Sets. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt033
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.