Cited by 166Evolution and Genetic DynamicsEvolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetry

INDEPENDENT CONTRASTS SUCCEED WHERE ANCESTOR RECONSTRUCTION FAILS IN A KNOWN BACTERIOPHAGE PHYLOGENY

Oakley, Todd H., Cunningham, Clifford W.·2000·Evolution

Abstract

Methods of ancestor reconstruction are important tools for evolutionary inference that are difficult to test empirically because ancestral states are rarely known with certainty. We evaluated reconstruction methods for continuous phenotypic characters using taxa from an experimentally generated bacteriophage phylogeny. Except for one slowly evolving character, the estimated ancestral states of continuous phenotypic characters were highly inaccurate and biased, even when including a known ancestor at the root. This error was caused by a directional trend in character evolution and by rapid rates of character evolution. Computer simulations confirmed that such factors affect reconstruction of continuous characters in general. We also used phenotypic viral characters to evaluate two methods that attempt to estimate the correlation between characters during evolution. Whereas a nonphylogenetic regression was relatively inaccurate and biased, independent contrasts accurately estimated the correlation between characters with little bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00042.x

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • If the evolution of a trait was directionally biased, or characterized by heterogeneous evolutionary rates, reconstructions of past events may be unreliable using extant taxa alone.

    “If the evolution of a trait was directionally biased, or characterized by heterogeneous evolutionary rates, reconstructions of past events may be unreliable using extant taxa alone (Oakley and Cunningham 2000).”

    From THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF CETACEAN BRAIN AND BODY SIZE: CETACEAN BRAIN EVOLUTION (2013) · cites this paper as Oakley and Cunningham 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oakley, T. H., & Cunningham, C. W.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Oakley, Todd H.
Venue
Evolution
Published
2000-04
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
397-405
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
OpenAlex
W2178409599
Cited by
166
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
Keywords
independent contrasts, ancestral state reconstruction, directional selection, trait correlation, simulation study
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Bacteriophage T7

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