Cited by 106Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesProtist diversity and phylogenyPhilosophy and History of Science

How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?

Open access
O'Malley, Maureen A, Koonin, Eugene V·2011·Biology Direct

Abstract

We examine the Tree of Life (TOL) as an evolutionary hypothesis and a heuristic. The original TOL hypothesis has failed but a new "statistical TOL hypothesis" is promising. The TOL heuristic usefully organizes data without positing fundamental evolutionary truth. This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle, Nicholas Galtier and Christophe Malaterre.

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 · 10.1186/1745-6150-6-32

Cites

127 of 128 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?

  • Resolving the nature of LUCA remains obscured.

    “The tree-of-life concept itself is a topic of active discussion in light of molecular genetics and the microbial species concept (O'Malley and Koonin, 2011), and as a result, resolving the nature of LUCA remains obscured.”

    From The Astrobiology Primer v2.0 (2016) · cites this paper as O'Malley and Koonin, 2011

    In “The legacy” and “The role of evolutionary trees and the TOL in creating knowledge” (pages unavailable), the paper describes active debate over the tree of life and says deep prokaryotic relationships may be difficult to resolve. Those passages support the cited background, but they do not specifically say that the nature of LUCA remains obscured; that appears to be the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Doolittle WF Sapp J (2005) If the Tree of Life fell, would we recognize the sound? Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution 2005 Oxford: Oxford University Press 199 133
  2. Oxford English Dictionary Heuristic Oxford English Dictionary Online http://www.oed.com
  3. Galtier N Comment on Bapteste et al Biol Direct 2009 4 34 10.1186/1745-6150-4-34 19788731 PMC2761302 · DOI
  4. Doolittle WF Response to Eric Bapteste et al Biol Direct 2009 4 34 10.1186/1745-6150-4-34 19788731 PMC2761302 · DOI
  5. Coyne J Why Evolution is True 2009 Oxford: Oxford University Press
  6. Panchen A Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology 1992 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  7. Peirce CS Hartshorne C, Weiss P Lectures on pragmatism (1903) Charles Sanders Peirce: The Collected Papers, Volume V: Pragmatism and Pramaticism 1931 Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press http://www.textlog.de/7664-2.html paragraph 189
  8. Ragan MA McInerney JO Lake JA The network of life: Genome beginnings and evolution Philos Trans R Soc B 2009 364 2169 2175 10.1098/rstb.2009.0046 PMC2874017 19571237 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Malley, M. A., & Koonin, E. V.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Koonin, Eugene V
Venue
Biology Direct
Published
2011
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
32
ISSN
1745-6150 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123233911
Cited by
106
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Biology Direct (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • University of Sydney
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine
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
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
tree of life, The Origin of Species, evolutionary hypothesis, statistical hypothesis, phylogenetic inference, evolutionary theory, history of evolutionary theory
MeSH terms
Animals, Archaea, Bacteria, Biological Evolution, Genes, Humans, Phylogeny, Selection, Genetic, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Vertebrates, Earth, Planet

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