2010
DOI: 10.2478/s11658-010-0010-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular systematics: A synthesis of the common methods and the state of knowledge

Abstract: Abstract:The comparative and evolutionary analysis of molecular data has allowed researchers to tackle biological questions that have long remained unresolved. The evolution of DNA and amino acid sequences can now be modeled accurately enough that the information conveyed can be used to reconstruct the past. The methods to infer phylogeny (the pattern of historical relationships among lineages of organisms and/or sequences) range from the simplest, based on parsimony, to more sophisticated and highly parametri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 209 publications
(233 reference statements)
0
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These discrepancies could be due to differences of both programs in methodological assumptions of rate change (auto-correlated in MultiDivtime, uncorrelated in BEAST), implementation of evolutionary models and prior calibrations, and techniques to calculate credibility intervals [104]. Moreover, molecular dating estimates are much older than the first neobatrachian fossils (dated in the Early Cretaceous; [105]), indicating either that currently available fossils might be a poor indicator of this particular branching event [105] or that the molecular dating could be overestimated [106].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These discrepancies could be due to differences of both programs in methodological assumptions of rate change (auto-correlated in MultiDivtime, uncorrelated in BEAST), implementation of evolutionary models and prior calibrations, and techniques to calculate credibility intervals [104]. Moreover, molecular dating estimates are much older than the first neobatrachian fossils (dated in the Early Cretaceous; [105]), indicating either that currently available fossils might be a poor indicator of this particular branching event [105] or that the molecular dating could be overestimated [106].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resulting alignment was analyzed using maximum likelihood (ML; Felsenstein, 1981) and Bayesian inference (BI; Huelsenbeck et al, 2001), which are currently the standard methods for molecular phylogenetic inference (reviewed in San Mauro and Agorreta, 2010). Analyses were run on the CIPRES Science Gateway (Miller et al, 2010).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This widely used method for dating phylogenies [70] assumes a relaxed uncorrelated clock with rates drawn from a lognormal distribution across branches. The ML optimal topology was used as a starting tree, and the birth-death process [71] was used to describe diversification.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%