Cited by 96Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesProtist diversity and phylogenyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Rooting the tree of life: the phylogenetic jury is still out

Open access
Gouy, Richard, Baurain, Denis, Philippe, Hervé·2015·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

This article aims to shed light on difficulties in rooting the tree of life (ToL) and to explore the (sociological) reasons underlying the limited interest in accurately addressing this fundamental issue. First, we briefly review the difficulties plaguing phylogenetic inference and the ways to improve the modelling of the substitution process, which is highly heterogeneous, both across sites and over time. We further observe that enriched taxon samplings, better gene samplings and clever data removal strategies have led to numerous revisions of the ToL, and that these improved shallow phylogenies nearly always relocate simple organisms higher in the ToL provided that long-branch attraction artefacts are kept at bay. Then, we note that, despite the flood of genomic data available since 2000, there has been a surprisingly low interest in inferring the root of the ToL. Furthermore, the rare studies dealing with this question were almost always based on methods dating from the 1990s that have been shown to be inaccurate for much more shallow issues! This leads us to argue that the current consensus about a bacterial root for the ToL can be traced back to the prejudice of Aristotle's Great Chain of Beings, in which simple organisms are ancestors of more complex life forms. Finally, we demonstrate that even the best models cannot yet handle the complexity of the evolutionary process encountered both at shallow depth, when the outgroup is too distant, and at the level of the inter-domain relationships. Altogether, we conclude that the commonly accepted bacterial root is still unproven and that the root of the ToL should be revisited using phylogenomic supermatrices to ensure that new evidence for eukaryogenesis, such as the recently described Lokiarcheota, is interpreted in a sound phylogenetic framework.

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 · 10.1098/rstb.2014.0329

Cites

94 of 94 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?

  • The site-heterogeneous CAT model, despite outcompeting any site-homogeneous model, is not immune to reconstruction artifacts.

    “Nonetheless, our observations with different sub-samplings of the sponge classes indicate that the site-heterogeneous CAT model, despite outcompeting any site-homogeneous model, is unsurprisingly not immune to reconstruction artifacts [23, 32].”

    From A Large and Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [23]

    Section 7 reports that CAT-based site-heterogeneous models performed slightly better than the site-homogeneous models tested, but all became sensitive to long-branch attraction as outgroup distance increased. Section 3 also says the CAT model can be inconsistent under heteropecilly. These passages support its vulnerability to reconstruction artifacts, but not the claim that it outcompetes *any* site-homogeneous model. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Commonly applied phylogenetic models do not account for a wide array of factors that are known to cause positively misleading phylogenetic estimates when overlooked.

    “While phylogenomics has revolutionized our understanding of the tree of life, commonly applied phylogenetic models do not account for a wide array of factors that are known to cause positively misleading phylogenetic estimates when overlooked18,19.”

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
Gouy, R., Baurain, D., & Philippe, H.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Liège (BE)
Corresponding author
Philippe, Hervé
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2015-09-26
Volume
370
Issue
1678
Pages
20140329
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2140742875
Cited by
96
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
phylogenetic inference, long-branch attraction, substitution models, taxon sampling, Great Chain of Being, eukaryotic origin, supermatrices, phylogenomics, archaea, prokaryotes
MeSH terms
Animals, Eukaryotic Cells, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Prokaryotic Cells

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