Skip to main content
Download PDF

Assessing the relative performance of fast molecular dating methods for phylogenomic data

BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 798 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Advances in genome sequencing techniques produced a significant growth of phylogenomic datasets. This massive amount of data represents a computational challenge for molecular dating with Bayesian approaches. Rapid molecular dating methods have been proposed over the last few decades to overcome these issues. However, a comparative evaluation of their relative performance on empirical data sets is lacking. We analyzed 23 empirical phylogenomic datasets to investigate the performance of two commonly employed fast dating methodologies: penalized likelihood (PL), implemented in treePL, and the relative rate framework (RRF), implemented in RelTime. They were compared to Bayesian analyses using the closest possible substitution models and calibration settings. We found that RRF was computationally faster and generally provided node age estimates statistically equivalent to Bayesian divergence times. PL time estimates consistently exhibited low levels of uncertainty. Overall, to approximate Bayesian approaches, RelTime is an efficient method with significantly lower computational demand, being more than 100 times faster than treePL. Thus, to alleviate the computational burden of Bayesian divergence time inference in the era of massive genomic data, molecular dating can be facilitated using the RRF, allowing evolutionary hypotheses to be tested more quickly and efficiently.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Molecular dating is an essential component of contemporary evolutionary studies. The idea that substitutions accumulate in a time-correlated manner in molecular sequences has greatly impacted evolutionary biology since it was proposed in the 1960s [1,2,3,4]. Over the last decades, major breakthroughs in sequencing technologies have allowed the assembly of large molecular datasets to estimate divergence times between species [5,6,7,8]. Such massive datasets pose a computational burden to parameter-rich molecular dating methods that rely on Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, slowing the testing and proposition of evolutionary hypotheses [9,10,11,12]. Because of this, phylogenomic studies have frequently devised alternative strategies to compute biological timescales, including the use of reduced datasets [13,14,15,16,17,18,19] and the summarization of time estimates based on data partitioning schemes [20, 21].

Such limitations prompted the development of rapid methods to date lineage divergences as alternatives to the standard Bayesian molecular dating, hence accelerating evolutionary analysis in the big data era [22, 23]. Like Bayesian approaches, the new methods have their own assumptions, including those related to how substitution rates vary across the phylogenetic tree. Currently, the most frequently used rapid molecular dating approaches are penalized likelihood (PL) [24] and the relative rate framework (RRF) [12, 25]. They have been employed in several branches of the Tree of Life, from prokaryotes to plants and animals [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Notably, these methodologies are more environmentally friendly than highly parametric Bayesian analyses, as their associated carbon footprints are orders of magnitude smaller [35]. Because of this, they might play an important role in the growing environmental awareness of bioinformatics research, conforming with the green computing standards [34, 35].

Although both PL and RRF do not require rate constancy, they are fundamentally distinct. PL uses a penalty function to minimize rate changes between adjacent branches globally [24]. Therefore, it assumes autocorrelation of evolutionary rates, which has been suggested as pervasive across the tree of life [36, 37]. A key component of PL is the smoothing parameter (λ), which controls the global level of rate variation and is optimized by a cross-validation method. The lower the value, the greater the rate variation across the phylogeny. PL was first implemented in the r8s software [38], and was later refined to deal with large phylogenies [39, 40]. In turn, RRF minimizes the difference in evolutionary rates of ancestral and descendant lineages individually [12]. This eliminates the need for a global penalty function and still accommodates rate differences between sister lineages [23]. As a result, RRF does not require any additional analytical step, such as the cross-validation procedure, to select an optimal level of rate variation. It is also important to mention that although the rates estimated by RRF are autocorrelated, RRF deals with lineage rates instead of branch rates [12], the standard modeling of Bayesian autocorrelated methods [41]. RRF is implemented in the RelTime routine of the software MEGA [42].

As they are currently implemented, PL and RRF also differ in the treatment of calibration information. While PL requires calibration information to be hard-bounded by minimum and/or maximum values [38], RRF via RelTime allows for the use of calibration densities [43]. Additionally, the uncertainty associated with the estimates of node ages are dealt with distinctly. PL can be combined with a bootstrap approach to asses uncertainty [38, 44], whereas RelTime adopts an explicit analytical equation to calculate confidence intervals [43]. Both frameworks reduce computational requirements compared to Bayesian relaxed clock methods. Because the algorithms of PL and RRF are different, results may be different, and their relative performances compared to Bayesian approaches have not been evaluated yet with empirical datasets.

As PL and RRF have been increasingly used to estimate timescales over the last years, it is essential to carry out large-scale evaluation against the popular Bayesian framework. While previous studies investigated both fast dating methods separately [22, 25, 40, 45,46,47,48], a joint assessment of their performance with empirical data is lacking [49]. Moreover, treePL, which is the most popular implementation of PL for large phylogenies, was not extensively compared to any Bayesian method whatsoever, and there is little information on how they behave comparatively with real data. In this regard, the phylogenomic datasets that have been produced in the last years provide the ideal opportunity to investigate the relative performances of rapid and Bayesian methods.

Material and methods

We collected empirical datasets from 23 phylogenomic studies to assess the relative performance of fast dating methods compared to Bayesian methods. Studies were selected based on the availability of Bayesian timetrees or the input files used to carry out Bayesian inference plus molecular sequence alignments deposited in public databases or as supplementary information. Data retrieved comprise DNA and amino acid sequences from diverse taxonomic groups with divergences as old as the Precambrian. The number of sequences ranged from tens to nearly a thousand, and alignment lengths from ~ 5 kb to > 4 Mb. Alignment lengths, data types, number of terminals, calibration information, methodology originally employed, and the labels used to refer to each study, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Detailed information about the phylogenomic datasets analyzed
Full size table

The original studies have employed a Bayesian relaxed clock methodology as implemented in BEAST, MCMCTree, or PhyloBayes, except for Kuntner et al. (2019), who estimated divergence times using the RRF. In this case, the Bayesian timescale was inferred for the first time. Whenever possible, timetrees were directly obtained from the original works. Otherwise, divergence times were estimated using the input files published. We tried to keep substitution models matching the original studies, but studies that used CAT models of amino acid substitution implemented in PhyloBayes [71] were subjected to model selection in MEGA X [42]. If the original study applied data partitioning with distinct substitution models, we chose the model used in most partitions.

Fast divergence time inference

We used the same alignment and topology as originally employed by the authors to estimate absolute times in RelTime [12, 25] and treePL [40]. Temporal calibration information was also extracted from the studies and applied according to the specificities of each method. To standardize computation, all analyses were carried out on a machine with a 3.2 GHz 6-Core Intel® i7 processor and 64 GB 2667 MHz DDR4 RAM. All branch lengths (in substitutions per site) used by both methods were estimated in MEGA X. RelTime calculations were performed with the command line version of MEGA X, and the confidence intervals (CI) of divergence times were calculated analytically, as implemented by the method.

In treePL, the program was firstly run using the option ‘prime’ to select the best optimization parameters. Then, a cross-validation procedure was performed to optimize the smoothing parameter values for each dataset [24], totalling 10 optimization iterations and 1017 simulated annealing iterations. The ‘cvstart’ and ‘cvstop’ parameters were set to 1017 and 10− 19, respectively, resulting in 37 smoothing parameter values tested. All analyses were run with the ‘thorough’ option. Confidence intervals of time estimates were calculated from 100 bootstrap replicates summarized in TreeAnnotator [72].

Regarding calibration information, whenever the original studies employed uniform priors, the bounds of the uniform distributions were provided as minimum and maximum boundaries of node age in treePL, while in RelTime, they were set as lower and upper limits of a uniform distribution. When probability distributions other than the uniform were originally used, namely, the normal, lognormal, exponential and skew-t distributions, they were also used in RelTime, except for the skew-t distribution, which is currently unavailable in this software. It was thus approximated by a normal distribution using the sn [73] and fitdistrplus packages [74] in R [75]. As treePL implements only minimum and maximum values as calibrations, we derived minimum and maximum bounds based on the lower 2.5% and upper 97.5% quantiles, respectively, of the density distributions. For the skew-t distribution, we did the same procedure, but using the normal distribution approximated for RelTime.

Because treePL works with rooted trees, the outgroup was removed before running the analyses. In RelTime, the outgroup was provided only to root the ingroup, but no calibrations were placed within it, and it was later removed from the estimated timetrees.

For the Kuntner et al. (2019) dataset, we inferred a Bayesian timescale in MCMCTree [76, 77] using the same calibration information, employing the independent rates prior with the HKY + G(5) substitution model [78]. Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis was run twice to check for convergence, each chain was sampled every 100th cycle until ESS values to approximate the posterior were greater than 200.

Evaluation of relative performance

To contrast RelTime and treePL estimates to those derived with Bayesian methods, we calculated a series of metrics. For Bayesian time estimates, either the means or the medians of the posterior distribution of divergence times were used, depending on which value was reported in the original study. For each dataset, we performed linear regressions of RelTime and treePL estimates against Bayesian estimates. The coefficient of determination (R2) and the slope (β) of the linear regression through the origin were used as summary statistics to assess the strength of the association between fast and Bayesian dating methods.

For each data set, the average difference between fast dating methods and Bayesian time estimates was normalized to become comparable across studies that focused on various depths of the Tree of Life. Given n divergence times in a data set, for each ith node age (t), the average difference was calculated as follows.

$$\overline{D}=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\mid {t}_{i, FAST}-{t}_{i, BAYES}\mid }{t_{i, BAYES}}\right)\times 100\%$$

Additionally, the precision of divergence time estimates was also accessed. For Bayesian time estimates, measures of uncertainty were as reported in the original study, either the highest posterior densities (HPDs) or the credibility intervals (CrIs). Because confidence and credibility intervals are fundamentally different from a statistical standpoint, they were not compared directly. In practice, these metrics are generally regarded as the measures of uncertainty associated with the time estimate in empirical studies, and they are required for evolutionary hypothesis testing. Thus, we reported their values for each method. For convenience, RelTime CIs, treePL CIs and HPDs/CrIs from Bayesian analyses will be hereafter referred to simply metrics of uncertainty.

For each dataset, two values were computed based on uncertainty metrics: the coverage and the median uncertainty width of each method. Coverage is a measure analogous to the success rate, as it indicates the frequency that node age estimates from fast methods were included within the credibility interval of the original Bayesian analyses. This frequency was computed for each dataset. The median uncertainty width of a method for each dataset was calculated as follows. For each ith node age estimate, the difference between the maximum (tmax) and minimum (tmin) limits of the uncertainty metric (U) was normalized by the estimated node age (t).

$$U\ {width}_i=\frac{t_{i,\mathit{\max}}-{t}_{i,\mathit{\min}}}{t_i}$$

Therefore, uncertainty widths of a data set were transformed as fractions of the estimated node ages, and their median value was calculated. Importantly, this measure was computed excluding nodes that presented node ages smaller than 10− 10. This was done to avoid division by values near zero.

We tested whether the number of terminals, the number of sites in the alignment, and the percentage of calibrated nodes (the number of calibrations divided by the number of tree nodes) impacted the association between the Bayesian estimates and those from both fast-dating methods. Linear models were inferred using 1) the absolute deviations of the slope of the regression lines from 1 or 2) the mean squared errors (MSEs) as response variables. Besides MSE, we also tested the R2 and the RMSE as measures of goodness of fit with identical results. The importance of each feature was assessed by the varImp function [79] of the caret R package [80].

Results

Fast methods produced time estimates highly correlated with Bayesian time estimates, regardless of the Bayesian method employed. All the recovered R2 values of the linear regression between fast methods and Bayesian node ages were ≥ 0.94, with most values higher than 0.98. The slope of the regression lines indicated a great correspondence between rapid methodologies and Bayesian node ages (Fig. 1a). The median slope values were 0.98 and 0.95 for treePL and RelTime, respectively. Nevertheless, the slopes of the regression lines between treePL and Bayesian time estimates presented a larger variance than when we compared RelTime to Bayesian node ages. For instance, in the Peters et al. dataset [67], the comparison of treePL and Bayesian time estimates returned a β = 1.99, indicating that node ages were generally 99% older than MCMCTree inferred times. For this same dataset, RelTime node ages led to a β = 1.46 when compared to Bayesian divergence times. For three other datasets, treePL estimates showed very high β values when compared to Bayesian estimates: PessoaFilho17 [65] (βtreePL = 1.57, βRelTime = 1.15), Allio20 [50] (βtreePL = 1.58, βRelTime = 1.09) and Peters17 [66] (βtreePL = 1.6, βRelTime = 1.16). On the other hand, treePL produced much younger times for the dataset of Fang18 [58] (βtreePL = 0.54, βRelTime = 0.75). The highest β recovered for RelTime was for the dataset of Ran18 [68] (βRelTime = 1.5), which was very similar to the β recovered for treePL (βtreePL = 1.48). The lower β values produced by the node ages estimated by RelTime were for the datasets of Hedin19 [60] (βtreePL = 0.54, βRelTime = 0.75) and Fang18 [58] (βtreePL = 0.78, βRelTime = 0.75). Comparisons between time estimates using Bayesian and fast methods per dataset can be accessed through Supporting information 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The performance of fast dating methodologies relative to the Bayesian methods for phylogenomic data. The slopes (β) of the linear regressions through the origin between rapid and Bayesian methods are shown in panel a. The mean normalized differences between RelTime/treePL and Bayesian node ages (\(\overline{D}\)) are shown in b

Full size image

The distribution of treePL \(\overline{D}\) values was also wider than the distribution of RelTime (Fig. 1b). RelTime estimates were, on average, more similar to Bayesian time estimates, as the mean \(\overline{D}\) was 26.5% for RelTime and 37.24% for treePL. When treePL was used to estimate divergence times, several datasets led to estimates that were, on average, more than 50% different from the Bayesian node ages. Conversely, RelTime molecular dates were, on average, more than 50% different than the Bayesian estimates for a single dataset (Ran18). For this dataset, both treePL and RelTime node ages were approximately 60% different from Bayesian times. For most datasets (70%), RelTime produced time estimates that were, on average, less than 30% different from the Bayesian ones, while treePL estimated node ages that were less than 30% distant from Bayesian times for only 39.13% of the datasets (Supporting information 2).

Regarding the uncertainties of time estimates, treePL provided very narrow uncertainty intervals, with the distribution of the median interval widths across all datasets analyzed centered around 19.6%. This same value was centered around 64.3% for Bayesian and 102.3% for RelTime. For some of the datasets (52.17%), treePL uncertainty intervals eventually did not include the node ages estimated by the method itself. In these cases, up to 9% of the node ages did not fall within the intervals generated by treePL bootstrap approach. Regarding the frequency in which fast methods’ divergence times were included within the Bayesian credibility intervals, treePL and RelTime presented a similar performance. Mean coverage values for RelTime node ages were centered around 77.3%, while for treePL, it was placed around 75.1% (Fig. 2). The percentage of datasets that led to coverage values that included less than half of the estimated node ages of a phylogeny was 41% for treePL and 27% for RelTime. On the other hand, for 36 and 45% of the studies, time estimates were covered by the Bayesian credibility interval with a frequency of more than 80% when using treePL and RelTime, respectively.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Frequency in which time estimates from treePL and RelTime were placed within the Bayesian credibility intervals as reported by the original studies (coverage)

Full size image

For both fast-dating methods, deviation from the slope β =1 was significantly explained by the three features investigated (p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.59 for RelTime and p < 0.005 and R2 = 0.40 for treePL). The data feature with the highest importance in determining the deviation from a perfect fit to Bayesian estimates was the number of sites in the alignment (importance of 60% for RelTime and 37% for TrerePL). For explaining MSEs, the calibration density was the feature with the highest importance for RelTime (69%, p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.50), while treePL MSEs were not significantly predicted by any of the features analyzed (p > 0.05). For RelTime, increasing the density of calibrations resulted in more distinct time estimates from Bayesian analysis.

Computational efficiency was very distinct between fast methods (Fig. 3). Average running times were 51.8 hours for treePL and 0.9 hours for RelTime. For most datasets, treePL took more than 24 hours to complete the calculations. In fact, RelTime usually took less than 2% of treePL running time, often more than 60 times faster than treePL (Fig. 3). Because confidence intervals are essential to retrieving uncertainty measures for divergence time estimates, treePL running times considered the estimation of branch lengths for the one hundred bootstrap replicates used to compute confidence intervals.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Computational speed ratio of RelTime to treePL for the phylogenomic datasets analyzed

Full size image

Discussion

We provided the first comprehensive analysis of two of the most frequently used fast dating methodologies against Bayesian molecular dating, employing several empirical phylogenomic datasets from distinct biological groups, including up to hundreds of taxa. We measured differences in node age estimates, coverage of the Bayesian credibility intervals, and computational time efficiency. Our findings indicate that RRF, as implemented in RelTime, is a fast alternative to time-consuming molecular dating software. RelTime was much faster and generally provided time estimates closer to the Bayesian node ages than treePL. TreePL, which is considered a fast algorithm for performing molecular dating, required a significant computational time. This was due to the bootstrapping strategy used to compute confidence intervals of time estimates. As measurements of uncertainty are necessary to interpret biological scenarios derived from timetrees, their calculation entailed a running time that was comparable to Bayesian approaches, with some running times of more than one month.

Studies that have evaluated treePL performance against other approaches are scarce. The original work describing its implementation performed an evaluation using simulated and empirical data [40]. However, simulations did not include alignments, as the divergence times were directly inferred from the true tree, and the empirical datasets did not consist of several loci. Previous works employing both Bayesian approaches and treePL compared time estimates for specific taxa [81, 82], and their results are contrasting, with treePL leading either to older time estimates than BEAST in angiosperm evolution [82], or younger node ages than BEAST in a flowering plant family [81]. These works also reported contrasting results regarding the precision of treePL time estimates. In the present study, treePL confidence intervals were consistently narrow for all datasets analyzed. This result is expected because the bootstrap procedure leads to reduced parametric uncertainty as the number of sites increases, which is the case for phylogenomic data. Regarding time estimates, we found that treePL tended to produce older estimates than Bayesian analyses (Fig. 1a). This is in agreement with other works that have compared PL to Bayesian and non-Bayesian approaches [83,84,85,86].

It is already known that PL may provide overly ancient divergence time estimates when there is no calibration information to limit node ages near the root because of optimization issues [87]. The absence of efficient time constraints at deeper nodes was, in fact, common to all the analyses where older estimates were obtained (β > 1.1). For most of these datasets, treePL placed the age of the deep nodes precisely at or very close to the values provided as loose maxima. To test if the PL approach would present a better performance when outgroups and root/outgroup calibrations were kept in the analyses, we have conducted all treePL analyses using all ingroup and outgroup sequences and calibrations (when applicable). We did not find any significant performance improvement (Supporting information 3). Additionally, our findings corroborate Barba-Montoya et al. [49], which recovered a better performance for RelTime using simulated data. These authors found treePL to be more impacted by minor deviations from the molecular clock. While we have not quantified the clockness of the empirical datasets, this was probably one of the reasons for the more asymmetrical distributions of \(\overline{D}\) values for treePL, while RelTime presented lower asymmetry (Supporting information 2).

Comparisons between time estimates retrieved by the RRF and Bayesian methods have been carried out in several empirical studies [12, 22, 25, 43, 45, 88,89,90]. Mello et al. (2017) and Tao et al. (2020) employed phylogenomic datasets and found that RelTime produced reliable time estimates compared to BEAST and MCMCTree. Here, we extended these findings to PhyloBayes software, which implements more sophisticated substitution models. Although MEGA does not provide the option to use the site-heterogeneous models implemented in PhyloBayes, times inferred employing the simpler models available in MEGA exhibited good correspondence to PhyloBayes estimates. The equivalence between timescales from simple and complex homogeneous substitution models was reported elsewhere [91]. We confirmed this finding and showed that it could be extended to site-heterogeneous substitution models.

If researchers need a faster alternative to Bayesian dating, our work demonstrated the good performance of RelTime’s RRF when compared to treePL. Besides providing node ages closer to Bayesian estimates, RelTime inferred ages were placed within Bayesian credibility intervals more frequently. Recently, using simulated data, Barba-Montoya et al. [49] also recovered a greater accuracy for RelTime when compared to other fast dating methods, particularly when autocorrelated rates were used. We showed that for empirical phylogenomic datasets, in which the true rate model is unknown, RelTime also performed better than treePL to approximate the standard Bayesian procedure. Additionally, on average, treePL produced rather precise estimates. The narrow confidence intervals of treePL estimates were also previously recovered using simulated data [49]. Simulations also have shown that RelTime confidence intervals exhibit equivalent or greater coverage probabilities than Bayesian approaches [43].

Besides having good statistical proprieties, we expect fast dating methods to reduce computational time significantly. We demonstrated that, on average, RelTime was 60 times faster than treePL. In the age of big data, such speed-up makes large-scale biological hypothesis testing feasible. Moreover, previous works based on simulations that accessed PL performance against Bayesian approaches and RelTime found that it performed worse than these methods under various scenarios of heterogeneous rates [25, 92]. These findings, together with our results that certified the speed of RelTime, demonstrate the usefulness of the RRF in obtaining biological timescales for large datasets.

The discrepancy between divergence time estimates from fast-dating and Bayesian methods was primarily influenced by the alignment length. Longer alignments resulted in larger differences between methods. This result is expected if methods rely on different modeling assumptions regarding parameters and evolutionary rate variation. Consequently, as the sample size approaches infinity, estimates become significantly different. For RelTime, calibration density significantly impacted the MSE of time estimates, implying that, besides alignment length, increasing the number of time constraints also makes the differences between methods more pronounced [49].

While previous work has advocated that RRF may not be suitable to infer divergence times for deep time datasets, leading to overly older time estimates [90], our analyses did not support this claim. Also, in contrast with a previous study [89], our results indicate that the strategy used by RelTime to calibrate timetrees [43] is as appropriate as the Bayesian calibration priors, yielding excellent correspondence between the timescales from both methods for most of the datasets (for ~ 78% of the datasets, β values deviated less than 0.2 from 1).

It is worth mentioning that larger differences between Bayesian analysis and RelTime may be retrieved at nodes connecting branches with lengths close to zero. Such lack of substitutions along branches causes RelTime to estimate more recent node ages. The fact that fast methods use branch lengths to estimate divergence times without relying on priors for node ages implies that when some branches have near zero substitutions, they underestimate times compared to Bayesian analysis. This occurs because divergence time priors assign lengths > 0 even when no substitutions are observed, as in the coalescent prior [93]. This may also affect treePL estimates, as observed for the dataset of Fang18 (Supporting information 2), although treePL may also assign non-zero time values to branches where the number of accumulated substitutions is effectively zero [40], leading to older inferred times than RelTime.

Our comparative analysis using a comprehensive empirical dataset has shown that fast dating methods are a viable alternative to time-consuming Bayesian methods to infer node ages for large-scale datasets. Additionally, we demonstrated that the RRF approach implemented in RelTime performed better, with lower demand in computational times. Thus, we emphasize the efficacy of the RRF in establishing molecular timescales with excellent correspondence to those inferred by Bayesian approaches. Timescales from different dating frameworks were impacted by alignment length, suggesting that their asymptotic properties are different. Furthermore, the quick estimation of confidence intervals of node ages allows for robust testing between several alternate evolutionary hypotheses, eliminating the computational burden brought forth by big data in biology.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available at the following link: https://github.com/biaumello/costa_et_al_2022.

References

  1. Doolittle RF, Blomback B. Amino-acid sequence investigations of Fibrinopeptides from various mammals: evolutionary implications. Nature. 1964;202:147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Margoliash E. Primary structure and evolution of cytochrome C. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1963;50:672–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. Molecular disease, evolution, and genic heterogeneity. In: Kasha M, Pullman B, editors. Horizons in biochemistry. New York, USA: Academic Press; 1962. p. 189–225.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. In: Evolving Genes and Proteins: Elsevier; 1965. p. 97–166. https://www.elsevier.com/books/evolving-genes-andproteins/bryson/978-1-4832-2734-4.

  5. Blair C, Bryson RW, Linkem CW, Lazcano D, Klicka J, McCormack JE. Cryptic diversity in the Mexican highlands: thousands of UCE loci help illuminate phylogenetic relationships, species limits and divergence times of montane rattlesnakes (Viperidae: Crotalus ). Mol Ecol Resour. 2019;19:349–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Givnish TJ, Zuluaga A, Spalink D, Soto Gomez M, Lam VKY, Saarela JM, et al. Monocot plastid phylogenomics, timeline, net rates of species diversification, the power of multi-gene analyses, and a functional model for the origin of monocots. Am J Bot. 2018;105:1888–910.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tarver JE, dos Reis M, Mirarab S, Moran RJ, Parker S, O’Reilly JE, et al. The interrelationships of placental mammals and the limits of phylogenetic inference. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8:330–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang L, Su D, Chang X, Foster CSP, Sun L, Huang C-H, et al. Phylogenomic insights into deep phylogeny of angiosperms based on broad nuclear gene sampling. Plant Commun. 2020;1:100027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Battistuzzi FU, Billing-Ross P, Paliwal A, Kumar S. Fast and slow implementations of relaxed-clock methods show similar patterns of accuracy in estimating divergence times. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28:2439–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bromham L, Duchêne S, Hua X, Ritchie AM, Duchêne DA, Ho SYW. Bayesian molecular dating: opening up the black box. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2018;93:1165–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crosby RW, Williams TL. Fast algorithms for computing phylogenetic divergence time. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017;18:514.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tamura K, Tao Q, Kumar S. Theoretical Foundation of the RelTime method for estimating divergence times from variable evolutionary rates. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1770–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Aardema ML, Stiassny MLJ, Alter SE. Genomic analysis of the only blind cichlid reveals extensive inactivation in eye and pigment formation genes. Genome Biol Evol. 2020;12:1392–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Del Cortona A, Jackson CJ, Bucchini F, Van Bel M, D’hondt S, Škaloud P, et al. Neoproterozoic origin and multiple transitions to macroscopic growth in green seaweeds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:2551–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Helmstetter AJ, Béthune K, Kamdem NG, Sonké B, Couvreur TLP. Individualistic evolutionary responses of Central African rain forest plants to Pleistocene climatic fluctuations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:32509–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jarvis ED, Mirarab S, Aberer AJ, Li B, Houde P, Li C, et al. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science. 2014;346:1320–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Percequillo AR, do Prado JR, Abreu EF, Dalapicolla J, Pavan AC, de Almeida Chiquito E, et al. Tempo and mode of evolution of oryzomyine rodents (Rodentia, Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae): a phylogenomic approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2021;159:107120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith SA, Brown JW, Walker JF. So many genes, so little time: a practical approach to divergence-time estimation in the genomic era. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0197433.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolfe JM, Breinholt JW, Crandall KA, Lemmon AR, Lemmon EM, Timm LE, et al. A phylogenomic framework, evolutionary timeline and genomic resources for comparative studies of decapod crustaceans. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2019;286:20190079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Irisarri I, Baurain D, Brinkmann H, Delsuc F, Sire J-Y, Kupfer A, et al. Phylotranscriptomic consolidation of the jawed vertebrate timetree. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1370–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Prum RO, Berv JS, Dornburg A, Field DJ, Townsend JP, Lemmon EM, et al. A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature. 2015;526:569–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mello B, Tao Q, Tamura K, Kumar S. Fast and accurate estimates of divergence times from big data. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:45–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tao Q, Tamura K, Kumar S. Efficient methods for dating evolutionary divergences. In: Ho SYW, editor. The molecular evolutionary clock. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 197–219.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanderson MJ. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 2002;19:101–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tamura K, Battistuzzi FU, Billing-Ross P, Murillo O, Filipski A, Kumar S. Estimating divergence times in large molecular phylogenies. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:19333–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bond JE, Garrison NL, Hamilton CA, Godwin RL, Hedin M, Agnarsson I. Phylogenomics resolves a spider backbone phylogeny and rejects a prevailing paradigm for orb web evolution. Curr Biol. 2014;24:1765–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Daane JM, Auvinet J, Stoebenau A, Yergeau D, Harris MP, Detrich HW. Developmental constraint shaped genome evolution and erythrocyte loss in Antarctic fishes following paleoclimate change. PLoS Genet. 2020;16:e1009173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fernández-Mazuecos M, Vargas P, McCauley RA, Monjas D, Otero A, Chaves JA, et al. The radiation of Darwin’s Giant daisies in the Galápagos Islands. Curr Biol. 2020;30:4989–4998.e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harvey MG, Bravo GA, Claramunt S, Cuervo AM, Derryberry GE, Battilana J, et al. The evolution of a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Science. 2020;370:1343–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Marin J, Battistuzzi FU, Brown AC, Hedges SB. The Timetree of prokaryotes: new insights into their evolution and speciation. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;34(2):437–446.

  31. Qiao J, Zhang X, Chen B, Huang F, Xu K, Huang Q, et al. Comparison of the cytoplastic genomes by resequencing: insights into the genetic diversity and the phylogeny of the agriculturally important genus Brassica. BMC Genomics. 2020;21:480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Roxas BAP, Roxas JL, Claus-Walker R, Harishankar A, Mansoor A, Anwar F, et al. Phylogenomic analysis of Clostridioides difficile ribotype 106 strains reveals novel genetic islands and emergent phenotypes. Sci Rep. 2020;10:22135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shingate P, Ravi V, Prasad A, Tay B-H, Venkatesh B. Chromosome-level genome assembly of the coastal horseshoe crab (Tachypleus gigas). Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20:1748–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grealey J, Lannelongue L, Saw W-Y, Marten J, Méric G, Ruiz-Carmona S, et al. The carbon footprint of bioinformatics. Mol Biol Evol. 2022;39:msac034.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kumar S. Embracing green computing in molecular Phylogenetics. Mol Biol Evol. 2022;39:msac043.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lepage T, Bryant D, Philippe H, Lartillot N. A general comparison of relaxed molecular clock models. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:2669–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tao Q, Tamura K, U. Battistuzzi F, Kumar S. A machine learning method for detecting autocorrelation of evolutionary rates in large phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2019;36:811–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sanderson MJ. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:301–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Paradis E. Molecular dating of phylogenies by likelihood methods: a comparison of models and a new information criterion. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013;67:436–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith SA, O’Meara BC. treePL: divergence time estimation using penalized likelihood for large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2689–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kishino H, Thorne JL, Bruno WJ. Performance of a divergence time estimation method under a probabilistic model of rate evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 2001;18:352–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1547–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Tao Q, Tamura K, Mello B, Kumar S. Reliable confidence intervals for RelTime estimates of evolutionary divergence times. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37:280–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Paradis E, Claramunt S, Brown J, Schliep K. Confidence intervals in molecular dating by maximum likelihood. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2022;178.

  45. Battistuzzi FU, Tao Q, Jones L, Tamura K, Kumar S. RelTime relaxes the strict molecular clock throughout the phylogeny. Genome Biol Evol. 2018;10:1631–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Chernikova D, Motamedi S, Csürös M, Koonin EV, Rogozin IB. A late origin of the extant eukaryotic diversity: divergence time estimates using rare genomic changes. Biol Direct. 2011;6:26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Filipski A, Murillo O, Freydenzon A, Tamura K, Kumar S. Prospects for building large Timetrees using molecular data with incomplete gene coverage among species. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31:2542–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Gunter NL, Weir TA, Slipinksi A, Bocak L, Cameron SL. If dung beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) arose in association with dinosaurs, did they also suffer a mass co-extinction at the K-Pg boundary? PLoS One. 2016;11:e0153570.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Barba-Montoya J, Tao Q, Kumar S. Assessing rapid relaxed-clock methods for Phylogenomic dating. Genome Biol Evol. 2021;13:evab251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Allio R, Scornavacca C, Nabholz B, Clamens A-L, Sperling FA, Condamine FL. Whole genome shotgun Phylogenomics resolves the pattern and timing of swallowtail butterfly evolution. Syst Biol. 2020;69:38–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Anderson FE, Williams BW, Horn KM, Erséus C, Halanych KM, Santos SR, et al. Phylogenomic analyses of Crassiclitellata support major northern and southern hemisphere clades and a Pangaean origin for earthworms. BMC Evol Biol. 2017;17:123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Blaimer BB, Ward PS, Schultz TR, Fisher BL, Brady SG. Paleotropical diversification dominates the evolution of the Hyperdiverse ant tribe Crematogastrini (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Syst Divers. 2018;2(5):3; 1–14.

  53. Borowiec ML. Convergent evolution of the Army ant syndrome and congruence in big-data Phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 2019;68:642–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chazot N, Wahlberg N, Freitas AVL, Mitter C, Labandeira C, Sohn J-C, et al. Priors and posteriors in Bayesian timing of divergence analyses: the age of butterflies revisited. Syst Biol. 2019;68:797–813.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Delsuc F, Philippe H, Tsagkogeorga G, Simion P, Tilak M-K, Turon X, et al. A phylogenomic framework and timescale for comparative studies of tunicates. BMC Biol. 2018;16:39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Delsuc F, Kuch M, Gibb GC, Karpinski E, Hackenberger D, Szpak P, et al. Ancient Mitogenomes reveal the evolutionary history and biogeography of sloths. Curr Biol. 2019;29:2031–2042.e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. dos Reis M, Gunnell GF, Barba-Montoya J, Wilkins A, Yang Z, Yoder AD. Using Phylogenomic data to explore the effects of relaxed clocks and calibration strategies on divergence time estimation: Primates as a test case. Syst Biol. 2018;67:594–615.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Fang B, Merilä J, Ribeiro F, Alexandre CM, Momigliano P. Worldwide phylogeny of three-spined sticklebacks. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018;127:613–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Feng Y-J, Blackburn DC, Liang D, Hillis DM, Wake DB, Cannatella DC, et al. Phylogenomics reveals rapid, simultaneous diversification of three major clades of Gondwanan frogs at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:E5864–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hedin M, Derkarabetian S, Alfaro A, Ramírez MJ, Bond JE. Phylogenomic analysis and revised classification of atypoid mygalomorph spiders (Araneae, Mygalomorphae), with notes on arachnid ultraconserved element loci. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6864.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Hughes LC, Ortí G, Huang Y, Sun Y, Baldwin CC, Thompson AW, et al. Comprehensive phylogeny of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) based on transcriptomic and genomic data. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:6249–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Johnson KP, Dietrich CH, Friedrich F, Beutel RG, Wipfler B, Peters RS, et al. Phylogenomics and the evolution of hemipteroid insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:12775–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kuntner M, Hamilton CA, Cheng R-C, Gregorič M, Lupše N, Lokovšek T, et al. Golden Orbweavers ignore biological rules: Phylogenomic and comparative analyses unravel a complex evolution of sexual size dimorphism. Syst Biol. 2019;68:555–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pereira AG, Sterli J, Moreira FRR, Schrago CG. Multilocus phylogeny and statistical biogeography clarify the evolutionary history of major lineages of turtles. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017;113:59–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pessoa-Filho M, Martins AM, Ferreira ME. Molecular dating of phylogenetic divergence between Urochloa species based on complete chloroplast genomes. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Peters RS, Krogmann L, Mayer C, Donath A, Gunkel S, Meusemann K, et al. Evolutionary history of the Hymenoptera. Curr Biol. 2017;27:1013–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Peters RS, Niehuis O, Gunkel S, Bläser M, Mayer C, Podsiadlowski L, et al. Transcriptome sequence-based phylogeny of chalcidoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) reveals a history of rapid radiations, convergence, and evolutionary success. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018;120:286–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ran J-H, Shen T-T, Wu H, Gong X, Wang X-Q. Phylogeny and evolutionary history of Pinaceae updated by transcriptomic analysis. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018;129:106–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sann M, Niehuis O, Peters RS, Mayer C, Kozlov A, Podsiadlowski L, et al. Phylogenomic analysis of Apoidea sheds new light on the sister group of bees. BMC Evol Biol. 2018;18:71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Yonezawa T, Segawa T, Mori H, Campos PF, Hongoh Y, Endo H, et al. Phylogenomics and morphology of extinct Paleognaths reveal the origin and evolution of the ratites. Curr Biol. 2017;27:68–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lartillot N, Philippe H. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21:1095–109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bouckaert R, Heled J, Kühnert D, Vaughan T, Wu C-H, Xie D, et al. BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Azzalini A. The R package “sn”: The Skew-Normal and Related Distributions such as the Skew-t and the SUN; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Delignette-Muller ML, Dutang C. fitdistrplus : an R package for fitting distributions. J Stat Softw. 2015;64(4):1–34.

  75. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  76. dos Reis M, Yang Z. Approximate likelihood calculation on a phylogeny for Bayesian estimation of divergence times. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28:2161–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Yang Z. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:1586–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol. 1985;22:160–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Gevrey M, Dimopoulos I, Lek S. Review and comparison of methods to study the contribution of variables in artificial neural network models. Ecol Model. 2003;160:249–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw. 2008;28(5):1–26.

  81. Cai L, Xi Z, Peterson K, Rushworth C, Beaulieu J, Davis CC. Phylogeny of Elatinaceae and the tropical Gondwanan origin of the Centroplacaceae (Malpighiaceae, Elatinaceae) clade. Plos one. 2016;11:e0161881.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Magallón S, Gómez-Acevedo S, Sánchez-Reyes LL, Hernández-Hernández T. A metacalibrated time-tree documents the early rise of flowering plant phylogenetic diversity. New Phytol. 2015;207:437–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Britton T, Anderson CL, Jacquet D, Lundqvist S, Bremer K. Estimating divergence times in large phylogenetic trees. Syst Biol. 2007;56:741–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Ericson PGP, Anderson CL, Britton T, Elzanowski A, Johansson US, Källersjö M, et al. Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Biol Lett. 2006;2:543–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Mulcahy DG, Noonan BP, Moss T, Townsend TM, Reeder TW, Sites JW, et al. Estimating divergence dates and evaluating dating methods using phylogenomic and mitochondrial data in squamate reptiles. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2012;65:974–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Pérez-Losada M, Høeg JT, Crandall KA. Unraveling the evolutionary radiation of the Thoracican barnacles using molecular and morphological evidence: a comparison of several divergence time estimation approaches. Syst Biol. 2004;53:244–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Sanderson MJ, Thorne JL, Wikström N, Bremer K. Molecular evidence on plant divergence times. Am J Bot. 2004;91:1656–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Battistuzzi FU, Billing-Ross P, Murillo O, Filipski A, Kumar S. A protocol for diagnosing the effect of calibration priors on posterior time estimates: a case study for the Cambrian explosion of animal Phyla. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:1907–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Beavan AJS, Donoghue PCJ, Beaumont MA, Pisani D. Performance of a priori and a posteriori calibration strategies in divergence time estimation. Genome Biol Evol. 2020;12:1087–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Lozano-Fernandez J, dos Reis M, Donoghue PCJ, Pisani D. RelTime rates collapse to a strict clock when estimating the timeline of animal diversification. Genome Biol Evol. 2017;9:1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Tao Q, Barba-Montoya J, Huuki LA, Durnan MK, Kumar S. Relative efficiencies of simple and complex substitution models in estimating divergence times in Phylogenomics. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37:1819–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Ho SYW. Accuracy of rate estimation using relaxed-clock models with a critical focus on the early metazoan radiation. Mol Biol Evol. 2005;22:1355–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Mello B, Tao Q, Barba-Montoya J, Kumar S. Molecular dating for phylogenies containing a mix of populations and species by using Bayesian and RelTime approaches. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021;21:122–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by grants from the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq, 409152/2018–8 and 309165/2019–9) and Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ, E-26/211.248/2019 and E-26/201.446/2022). FPC was supported by scholarships from CNPq (132838/2019–2) and FAPERJ (E-26/200.170/2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-617, Brazil

    Fernanda P. Costa, Carlos G. Schrago & Beatriz Mello

Authors
  1. Fernanda P. Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlos G. Schrago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beatriz Mello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BM conceived the ideas, and BM and FPC designed the methodology; BM and FPC collected the data; BM, FPC, and CGS analyzed the data; BM, FPC, and CGS discussed the results; BM and FPC led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Mello.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supporting information 1.

Comparison of Bayesian and fast methods’ time estimates for each of the datasets analyzed. Each point represents an estimate of absolute time via Bayesian and treePL (blue) and RelTime (red) methods. Each graph contains the linear regression through the origin (dashed line), and the slope (β) and linear regression coefficient (R2) values. Calibrated nodes are represented by triangles. Supporting information 2. Kernel densities of the mean normalized differences between fast methods and Bayesian time estimates (Δt) for each of the datasets analyzed. For each node, it is computed as the difference between the treePL (blue) or RelTime (red) estimate and the Bayesian estimate divided by the Bayesian estimate. Supporting information 3. The performance of fast dating methodologies relative to the Bayesian methods for phylogenomic data. “RelTime” and “treePL (without calibrations)” are the same results presented in Fig. 1. “treePL (ape rooting)” and “treePL (Figtree rooting)” are the results recovered using the location of the root node placed by ape and Figtree, respectively. The slopes (β) of the linear regressions through the origin between rapid and Bayesian methods are shown in the left panels. The mean normalized differences between RelTime/treePL and Bayesian node ages (𝐷 “) are shown in the right panels.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costa, F.P., Schrago, C.G. & Mello, B. Assessing the relative performance of fast molecular dating methods for phylogenomic data. BMC Genomics 23, 798 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-09030-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-09030-5

Keywords

BMC Genomics

ISSN: 1471-2164

Contact us