4.8 Article

Genomic data support the hominoid slowdown and an Early Oligocene estimate for the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0407270101

关键词

evolution; molecular clock; primates

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR-03037, G12 RR003037] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several lines of indirect evidence suggest that hominoids (apes and humans) and cercopithecoids (Old World monkeys) diverged around 23-25 Mya. Importantly, although this range of dates has been used as both an initial assumption and as a confirmation of results in many molecular-clock analyses, it has not been critically assessed on its own merits. In this article we test the robusticity of the 23- to 25-Mya estimate with approximate to150,000 base pairs of orthologous DNA sequence data from two cercopithecoids and two hominoids by using quartet analysis. This method is an improvement over other estimates of the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence because it incorporates two calibration points, one each within cercopithecoids and hominoids, and tests for a statistically appropriate model of molecular evolution. Most comparisons reject rate constancy in favor of a model incorporating two rates of evolution, supporting the hominoid slowdown hypothesis. By using this model of molecular evolution, the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence is estimated to range from 29.2 to 34.5 Mya, significantly older than most previous analyses. Hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence dates of 23-25 Mya fall outside of the confidence intervals estimated, suggesting that as much as onethird of ape evolution has not been paleontologically sampled. Identifying stem cercopithecoids or hominoids from this period will be difficult because derived features that define crown catarrhines need not be present in early members of these lineages. More sites that sample primate habitats from the Oligocene of Africa are needed to better understand early ape and Old World monkey evolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据