Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the Impact of Genomic Data and Priors on Bayesian Estimates of the Angiosperm Evolutionary Timescale

Foster, Charles S. P., Sauquet, Hervê, van der Merwe, Marlien, McPherson, Hannah, Rossetto, Maurizio, Ho, Simon Y. W.·2016·Systematic Biology

Abstract

The evolutionary timescale of angiosperms has long been a key question in biology. Molecular estimates of this timescale have shown considerable variation, being influenced by differences in taxon sampling, gene sampling, fossil calibrations, evolutionary models, and choices of priors. Here, we analyze a data set comprising 76 protein-coding genes from the chloroplast genomes of 195 taxa spanning 86 families, including novel genome sequences for 11 taxa, to evaluate the impact of models, priors, and gene sampling on Bayesian estimates of the angiosperm evolutionary timescale. Using a Bayesian relaxed molecular-clock method, with a core set of 35 minimum and two maximum fossil constraints, we estimated that crown angiosperms arose 221 (251-192) Ma during the Triassic. Based on a range of additional sensitivity and subsampling analyses, we found that our date estimates were generally robust to large changes in the parameters of the birth-death tree prior and of the model of rate variation across branches. We found an exception to this when we implemented fossil calibrations in the form of highly informative gamma priors rather than as uniform priors on node ages. Under all other calibration schemes, including trials of seven maximum age constraints, we consistently found that the earliest divergences of angiosperm clades substantially predate the oldest fossils that can be assigned unequivocally to their crown group. Overall, our results and experiments with genome-scale data suggest that reliable estimates of the angiosperm crown age will require increased taxon sampling, significant methodological changes, and new information from the fossil record. [Angiospermae, chloroplast, genome, molecular dating, Triassic.].

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/sysbio/syw086

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 15 references

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Foster, C. S. P., Sauquet, H., van der Merwe, M., McPherson, H., Rossetto, M., & Ho, S. Y. W.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2016-09-20
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
syw086
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2522144292
Cited by
171
References
15
FWCI
21.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Evaluating the Impact of Genomic Data and Priors on Bayesian Estimates of the Angiosperm Evolutionary Timescale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syw086
The paper
Foster, C. S. P., Sauquet, H., van der Merwe, M., McPherson, H., Rossetto, M., & Ho, S. Y. W. (2016). Evaluating the Impact of Genomic Data and Priors on Bayesian Estimates of the Angiosperm Evolutionary Timescale. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw086

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.