Cited by 180Protist diversity and phylogenyGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

The origin and diversification of eukaryotes: problems with molecular phylogenetics and molecular clock estimation

Open access
Roger, Andrew J, Hug, Laura A·2006·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Determining the relationships among and divergence times for the major eukaryotic lineages remains one of the most important and controversial outstanding problems in evolutionary biology. The sequencing and phylogenetic analyses of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes led to the first nearly comprehensive phylogenies of eukaryotes in the late 1980s, and supported a view where cellular complexity was acquired during the divergence of extant unicellular eukaryote lineages. More recently, however, refinements in analytical methods coupled with the availability of many additional genes for phylogenetic analysis showed that much of the deep structure of early rRNA trees was artefactual. Recent phylogenetic analyses of a multiple genes and the discovery of important molecular and ultrastructural phylogenetic characters have resolved eukaryotic diversity into six major hypothetical groups. Yet relationships among these groups remain poorly understood because of saturation of sequence changes on the billion-year time-scale, possible rapid radiations of major lineages, phylogenetic artefacts and endosymbiotic or lateral gene transfer among eukaryotes. Estimating the divergence dates between the major eukaryote lineages using molecular analyses is even more difficult than phylogenetic estimation. Error in such analyses comes from a myriad of sources including: (i) calibration fossil dates, (ii) the assumed phylogenetic tree, (iii) the nucleotide or amino acid substitution model, (iv) substitution number (branch length) estimates, (v) the model of how rates of evolution change over the tree, (vi) error inherent in the time estimates for a given model and (vii) how multiple gene data are treated. By reanalysing datasets from recently published molecular clock studies, we show that when errors from these various sources are properly accounted for, the confidence intervals on inferred dates can be very large. Furthermore, estimated dates of divergence vary hugely depending on the methods used and their assumptions. Accurate dating of divergence times among the major eukaryote lineages will require a robust tree of eukaryotes, a much richer Proterozoic fossil record of microbial eukaryotes assignable to extant groups for calibration, more sophisticated relaxed molecular clock methods and many more genes sampled from the full diversity of microbial eukaryotes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2006.1845

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The dates of divergence between taxa are more difficult to establish than the phylogeny.

    “However, the dates of divergence between taxa—the time that has elapsed since two species shared a common ancestor—are more difficult to establish than the phylogeny (Roger and Hug, 2006).”

    From The Astrobiology Primer v2.0 (2016) · cites this paper as Roger and Hug, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roger, A. J., & Hug, L. A.
Affiliations
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2006-05-08
Volume
361
Issue
1470
Pages
1039-1054
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2105487208
Cited by
180
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Dalhousie University
  • Killam Trusts
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP62809)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (227085-2005)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
eukaryotic phylogeny, eukaryotic diversification, divergence time estimation, molecular clock, ribosomal RNA phylogeny, endosymbiotic gene transfer, horizontal gene transfer, fossil calibration, relaxed molecular clock, eukaryotic origin, cellular complexity
MeSH terms
Eukaryotic Cells, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, Tetrahydrofolate Dehydrogenase, Thymidylate Synthase, 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