4.8 Article

Estimating divergence times in the presence of an overdispersed molecular clock

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 1647-1660

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026264

Keywords

metazoan radiation; Cambrian explosion; overdispersion; molecular clock

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Molecular loci that fail relative-rate tests are said to be overdispersed. Traditional molecular-clock approaches to estimating divergence times do not take this into account. In this study, a method was developed to estimate divergence times using loci that may be overdispersed. The approach was to replace the traditional Poisson process assumption with a more general stationary process assumption. A probability model was developed, and an accompanying computer program was written to find maximum-likelihood estimates of divergence times under both the Poisson process and the stationary process assumptions. In simulation, it was shown that confidence intervals under the traditional Poisson assumptions often vastly underestimate the true confidence limits for overdispersed loci. Both models were applied to two data sets: one from land plants, the other from the higher metazoans. In both cases, the traditional Poisson process model could be rejected with high confidence. Maximum-likelihood analysis of the metazoan data set under the more general stationary process suggested that their radiation occurred well over a billion years ago, but confidence intervals were extremely wide. It was also shown that a model consistent with a Cambrian (or nearly Cambrian) origination of the animal phyla, although significantly less likely than a much older divergence, fined the data well. It is argued that without an a priori understanding of the variance in the time between substitutions, molecular data sets may be incapable of ever establishing the age of the metazoan radiation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available