The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PERSPECTIVE: GENE DIVERGENCE, POPULATION DIVERGENCE, AND THE VARIANCE IN COALESCENCE TIME IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC STUDIES
Abstract
Molecular methods as applied to the biogeography of single species (phylogeography) or multiple codistributed species (comparative phylogeography) have been productively and extensively used to elucidate common historical features in the diversification of the Earth's biota. However, only recently have methods for estimating population divergence times or their confidence limits while taking into account the critical effects of genetic polymorphism in ancestral species become available, and earlier methods for doing so are underutilized. We review models that address the crucial distinction between the gene divergence, the parameter that is typically recovered in molecular phylogeographic studies, and the population divergence, which is in most cases the parameter of interest and will almost always postdate the gene divergence. Assuming that population sizes of ancestral species are distributed similarly to those of extant species, we show that phylogeographic studies in vertebrates suggest that divergence of alleles in ancestral species can comprise from less than 10% to over 50% of the total divergence between sister species, suggesting that the problem of ancestral polymorphism in dating population divergence can be substantial. The variance in the number of substitutions (among loci for a given species or among species for a given gene) resulting from the stochastic nature of DNA change is generally smaller than the variance due to substitutions along allelic lines whose coalescence times vary due to genetic drift in the ancestral population. Whereas the former variance can be reduced by further DNA sequencing at a single locus, the latter cannot. Contrary to phylogeographic intuition, dating population divergence times when allelic lines have achieved reciprocal monophyly is in some ways more challenging than when allelic lines have not achieved monophyly, because in the former case critical data on ancestral population size provided by residual ancestral polymorphism is lost. In the former case differences in coalescence time between species pairs can in principle be explained entirely by differences in ancestral population size without resorting to explanations involving differences in divergence time. Furthermore, the confidence limits on population divergence times are severely underestimated when those for number of substitutions per site in the DNA sequences examined are used as a proxy. This uncertainty highlights the importance of multilocus data in estimating population divergence times; multilocus data can in principle distinguish differences in coalescence time (T) resulting from differences in population divergence time and differences in T due to differences in ancestral population sizes and will reduce the confidence limits on the estimates. We analyze the contribution of ancestral population size (theta) to T and the effect of uncertainty in theta on estimates of population divergence (tau) for single loci under reciprocal monophyly using a simple Bayesian extension of Takahata and Satta's and Yang's recent coalescent methods. The confidence limits on tau decrease when the range over which ancestral population size theta is assumed to be distributed decreases and when tau increases; they generally exclude zero when tau/(4Ne) > 1. We also apply a maximum-likelihood method to several single and multilocus data sets. With multilocus data, the criterion for excluding tau = 0 is roughly that l tau/(4Ne) > 1, where l is the number of loci. Our analyses corroborate recent suggestions that increasing the number of loci is critical to decreasing the uncertainty in estimates of population divergence time.
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
Kimura, M. (1980) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01731581 · Cited by 29,778
Evolution of Protein Molecules
JUKES, T. H., & CANTOR, C. R. (1969) · Mammalian Protein Metabolism · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 · Cited by 11,032
A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy.
Sanderson, M. J. (1997) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025731 · Cited by 1,156
Vagaries of the molecular clock.
Ayala, F. J. (1997) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.94.15.7776 · Cited by 140
Cited by
Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?
Edwards, S. V. (2009) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00549.x · Cited by 1,040
Self-citationMitochondrial DNA under siege in avian phylogeography
ZINK, R. M., & BARROWCLOUGH, G. F. (2008) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.03737.x · Cited by 916
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
Comparative phylogeography as an integrative approach to historical biogeography
Arbogast, B. S., & Kenagy, G. J. (2001) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00594.x · Cited by 420
Ice sheets promote speciation in boreal birds
Weir, J. T., & Schluter, D. (2004) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2803 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, S., & Beerli, P.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1839-1854
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2177816505
- Cited by
- 900
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.47
- 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: PERSPECTIVE: GENE DIVERGENCE, POPULATION DIVERGENCE, AND THE VARIANCE IN COALESCENCE TIME IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC STUDIES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb01231.x
- The paper
- Edwards, S., & Beerli, P. (2000). PERSPECTIVE: GENE DIVERGENCE, POPULATION DIVERGENCE, AND THE VARIANCE IN COALESCENCE TIME IN PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC STUDIES. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb01231.x
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.