Critiquing blind dating: The dangers of over-confident date estimates in comparative genomics

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 28, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 636-642

  Wheat, Christopher W ^a   Wahlberg, Niklas ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATING METHOD; DIVERGENCE; FOSSIL RECORD; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENETICS;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BUTTERFLY; CLASSIFICATION; FOSSIL; GENETICS; GENOMICS; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; TIME;

ANIMALS; BUTTERFLIES; CLASSIFICATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FOSSILS; GENOMICS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84885927382     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.07.007     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Zhan S., et al. The monarch butterfly genome yields insights into long-distance migration. Cell 2011, 147:1171-1185.
2. Ehrlich P.R., Raven P.H. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 1964, 18:586-608.
3. Wheat C.W., et al. The genetic basis of a plant-insect coevolutionary key innovation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:20427-20431.
4. Moreau C., et al. Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms. Science 2006, 312:101-104.
5. Krzywinski J., et al. Analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA from Anopheles funestus: an improved dipteran mitochondrial genome annotation and a temporal dimension of mosquito evolution. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2006, 39:417-423.
6. Werren J.H., et al. Functional and evolutionary insights from the genomes of three parasitoid Nasonia species. Science 2010, 327:343-348.
7. Grimaldi D., Engel M. Evolution of the Insects 2005, Cambridge University Press.
8. Ho S.Y., Phillips M.J. Accounting for calibration uncertainty in phylogenetic estimation of evolutionary divergence times. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:367-380.
9. Vane-Wright D. Butterflies at that awkward age. Nature 2004, 428:477-480.
10. Wahlberg N. That awkward age for butterflies: insights from the age of the butterfly subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:703-714.
11. Wahlberg N., et al. Nymphalid butterflies diversify following near demise at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:4295-4302.
12. Heikkilä M., et al. Cretaceous origin and repeated tertiary diversification of the redefined butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2011, 279:1093-1099.
13. Wahlberg N., Wheat C.W. Genomic outposts serve the phylogenomic pioneers: designing novel nuclear markers for genomic DNA extractions of Lepidoptera. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57:231-242.
14. Braby M., et al. Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea): higher classification and biogeography. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2006, 147:239-275.
15. Condamine F.L., et al. Fine-scale biogeographical and temporal diversification processes of peacock swallowtails (Papilio subgenus Achillides) in the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Cladistics 2012, 29:88-111.
16. Condamine F.L., et al. What causes latitudinal gradients in species diversity? Evolutionary processes and ecological constraints on swallowtail biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 2012, 15:267-277.
17. Mutanen M., et al. Comprehensive gene and taxon coverage elucidates radiation patterns in moths and butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2010, 277:2839-2848.
18. Gaunt M.W., Miles M.A. An insect molecular clock dates the origin of the insects and accords with palaeontological and biogeographic landmarks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:748-761.
19. Wiegmann B.M., et al. Episodic radiations in the fly tree of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:5690-5695.
20. Donoghue P.C.J., Benton M.J. Rocks and clocks: calibrating the Tree of Life using fossils and molecules. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:424-431.
21. Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium et al. (2007) Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature 450, 203-218.
22. Tamura K., et al. Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:36-44.
23. Roger A.J., Hug L.A. The origin and diversification of eukaryotes: problems with molecular phylogenetics and molecular clock estimation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2006, 361:1039-1054.
24. Ho S.Y.W., et al. Time dependency of molecular rate estimates and systematic overestimation of recent divergence times. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1561-1568.
25. Obbard D.J., et al. Estimating divergence dates and substitution rates in the Drosophila phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29:3459-3473.
26. Prud'homme B., et al. Repeated morphological evolution through cis-regulatory changes in a pleiotropic gene. Nature 2006, 440:1050-1053.
27. Stark A., et al. Discovery of functional elements in 12 Drosophila genomes using evolutionary signatures. Nature 2007, 450:219-232.
28. Yang Z.H., Rannala B. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:212-226.
29. Zuckerkandl E., Pauling L. Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. Evolving Genes Proteins 1965, 97:97-166.
30. Drummond A.J., et al. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:e88.
31. Heled J., Drummond A.J. Calibrated tree priors for relaxed phylogenetics and divergence time estimation. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:138-149.
32. Wheat C.W., Wahlberg N. Phylogenomic insights into the Cambrian explosion, the colonization of land and the evolution of flight in Arthropoda. Syst. Biol. 2012, 62:93-109.
33. Gatesy J., et al. How many genes should a systematist sample? Conflicting insights from a phylogenomic matrix characterized by replicated incongruence. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:355-363.
34. Philippe H., et al. Phylogenomics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:541-562.
35. Regier J.C., et al. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 2010, 463:1079-1083.
36. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 1978, 27:401-410.
37. Soltis D.E., et al. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and 'ending incongruence': a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9:477-483.
38. Regier J.C., et al. Pancrustacean phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2005, 272:395-401.
39. Nichols R. Gene trees and species trees are not the same. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16:358-364.
40. Aris-Brosou S., Yang Z. Effects of models of rate evolution on estimation of divergence dates with special reference to the metazoan 18S ribosomal RNA phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:703-714.
41. Welch J.J., Bromham L. Molecular dating when rates vary. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20:320-327.
42. Sanders K.L., Lee M.S.Y. Arthropod molecular divergence times and the Cambrian origin of pentastomids. Syst. Biodivers. 2010, 8:63-74.
43. Blair J.E., Hedges S.B. Molecular clocks do not support the Cambrian explosion. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:387-390.
44. Benton M.J., Donoghue P.C.J. Paleontological evidence to date the tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:26-53.
45. Ho S.Y.W., et al. Accuracy of rate estimation using relaxed-clock models with a critical focus on the early metazoan radiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1355-1363.
46. Battistuzzi F.U., et al. Performance of relaxed-clock methods in estimating evolutionary divergence times and their credibility intervals. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010, 27:1289-1300.