Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Oct 29;359(1450):1477–1483. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1523

Assessing the quality of molecular divergence time estimates by fossil calibrations and fossil-based model selection.

Thomas J Near 1, Michael J Sanderson 1
PMCID: PMC1693436  PMID: 15519966

Abstract

Estimates of species divergence times using DNA sequence data are playing an increasingly important role in studies of evolution, ecology and biogeography. Most work has centred on obtaining appropriate kinds of data and developing optimal estimation procedures, whereas somewhat less attention has focused on the calibration of divergences using fossils. Case studies with multiple fossil calibration points provide important opportunities to examine the divergence time estimation problem in new ways. We discuss two cross-validation procedures that address different aspects of inference in divergence time estimation. 'Fossil cross-validation' is a procedure used to identify the impact of different individual calibrations on overall estimation. This can identify fossils that have an exceptionally large error effect and may warrant further scrutiny. 'Fossil-based model cross-validation' is an entirely different procedure that uses fossils to identify the optimal model of molecular evolution in the context of rate smoothing or other inference methods. Both procedures were applied to two recent studies: an analysis of monocot angiosperms with eight fossil calibrations and an analysis of placental mammals with nine fossil calibrations. In each case, fossil calibrations could be ranked from most to least influential, and in one of the two studies, the fossils provided decisive evidence about the optimal molecular evolutionary model.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (158.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Benton Michael J., Ayala Francisco J. Dating the tree of life. Science. 2003 Jun 13;300(5626):1698–1700. doi: 10.1126/science.1077795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bremer K. Early Cretaceous lineages of monocot flowering plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Apr 25;97(9):4707–4711. doi: 10.1073/pnas.080421597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Britten R. J. Rates of DNA sequence evolution differ between taxonomic groups. Science. 1986 Mar 21;231(4744):1393–1398. doi: 10.1126/science.3082006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bromham Lindell, Penny David. The modern molecular clock. Nat Rev Genet. 2003 Mar;4(3):216–224. doi: 10.1038/nrg1020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Conti Elena, Eriksson Torsten, Schönenberger Jürg, Sytsma Kenneth J., Baum David A. Early Tertiary out-of-India dispersal of Crypteroniaceae: evidence from phylogeny and molecular dating. Evolution. 2002 Oct;56(10):1931–1942. doi: 10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[1931:ETOOID]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Graur Dan, Martin William. Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. Trends Genet. 2004 Feb;20(2):80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2003.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gray Russell D., Atkinson Quentin D. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature. 2003 Nov 27;426(6965):435–439. doi: 10.1038/nature02029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hedges S. B., Parker P. H., Sibley C. G., Kumar S. Continental breakup and the ordinal diversification of birds and mammals. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):226–229. doi: 10.1038/381226a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Huelsenbeck J. P., Larget B., Swofford D. A compound poisson process for relaxing the molecular clock. Genetics. 2000 Apr;154(4):1879–1892. doi: 10.1093/genetics/154.4.1879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lee M. S. Molecular clock calibrations and metazoan divergence dates. J Mol Evol. 1999 Sep;49(3):385–391. doi: 10.1007/pl00006562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Magallón S., Sanderson M. J. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm clades. Evolution. 2001 Sep;55(9):1762–1780. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00826.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Marshall C. R. The fossil record and estimating divergence times between lineages: maximum divergence times and the importance of reliable phylogenies. J Mol Evol. 1990 May;30(5):400–408. doi: 10.1007/BF02101112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Murphy W. J., Eizirik E., O'Brien S. J., Madsen O., Scally M., Douady C. J., Teeling E., Ryder O. A., Stanhope M. J., de Jong W. W. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science. 2001 Dec 14;294(5550):2348–2351. doi: 10.1126/science.1067179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sanderson Michael J. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Jan;19(1):101–109. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sanderson Michael J. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22;19(2):301–302. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shaul Shaul, Graur Dan. Playing chicken (Gallus gallus): methodological inconsistencies of molecular divergence date estimates due to secondary calibration points. Gene. 2002 Oct 30;300(1-2):59–61. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(02)00851-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Soltis Pamela S., Soltis Douglas E., Savolainen Vincent, Crane Peter R., Barraclough Timothy G. Rate heterogeneity among lineages of tracheophytes: integration of molecular and fossil data and evidence for molecular living fossils. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Mar 26;99(7):4430–4435. doi: 10.1073/pnas.032087199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Springer Mark S., Murphy William J., Eizirik Eduardo, O'Brien Stephen J. Placental mammal diversification and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jan 27;100(3):1056–1061. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0334222100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Takezaki N., Rzhetsky A., Nei M. Phylogenetic test of the molecular clock and linearized trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 Sep;12(5):823–833. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Thompson J. D., Higgins D. G., Gibson T. J. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Nov 11;22(22):4673–4680. doi: 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Thorne J. L., Kishino H., Painter I. S. Estimating the rate of evolution of the rate of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Dec;15(12):1647–1657. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Yoder A. D., Yang Z. Estimation of primate speciation dates using local molecular clocks. Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Jul;17(7):1081–1090. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. van Tuinen Marcel, Dyke Gareth J. Calibration of galliform molecular clocks using multiple fossils and genetic partitions. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Jan;30(1):74–86. doi: 10.1016/s1055-7903(03)00164-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES