Kumar Sudhir, Hedges S Blair
Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University Center for Biodiversity, Temple University Department of Biology, Temple University
Institute for Genomics and Evolutionary Medicine, Temple University Center for Biodiversity, Temple University Department of Biology, Temple University.
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Apr;33(4):863-9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw026. Epub 2016 Feb 16.
Molecular dating has become central to placing a temporal dimension on the tree of life. Methods for estimating divergence times have been developed for over 50 years, beginning with the proposal of molecular clock in 1962. We categorize the chronological development of these methods into four generations based on the timing of their origin. In the first generation approaches (1960s-1980s), a strict molecular clock was assumed to date divergences. In the second generation approaches (1990s), the equality of evolutionary rates between species was first tested and then a strict molecular clock applied to estimate divergence times. The third generation approaches (since ∼2000) account for differences in evolutionary rates across the tree by using a statistical model, obviating the need to assume a clock or to test the equality of evolutionary rates among species. Bayesian methods in the third generation require a specific or uniform prior on the speciation-process and enable the inclusion of uncertainty in clock calibrations. The fourth generation approaches (since 2012) allow rates to vary from branch to branch, but do not need prior selection of a statistical model to describe the rate variation or the specification of speciation model. With high accuracy, comparable to Bayesian approaches, and speeds that are orders of magnitude faster, fourth generation methods are able to produce reliable timetrees of thousands of species using genome scale data. We found that early time estimates from second generation studies are similar to those of third and fourth generation studies, indicating that methodological advances have not fundamentally altered the timetree of life, but rather have facilitated time estimation by enabling the inclusion of more species. Nonetheless, we feel an urgent need for testing the accuracy and precision of third and fourth generation methods, including their robustness to misspecification of priors in the analysis of large phylogenies and data sets.
分子定年已成为在生命之树上确定时间维度的核心方法。自1962年分子钟的概念被提出以来,用于估计分歧时间的方法已经发展了50多年。我们根据这些方法的起源时间将其按时间顺序发展分为四代。在第一代方法(20世纪60年代至80年代)中,人们假定严格的分子钟来确定分歧时间。在第二代方法(20世纪90年代)中,首先检验物种间进化速率的相等性,然后应用严格的分子钟来估计分歧时间。第三代方法(大约从2000年开始)通过使用统计模型来考虑整个树上进化速率的差异,从而无需假定分子钟或检验物种间进化速率的相等性。第三代中的贝叶斯方法需要对物种形成过程有一个特定的或统一的先验假设,并能够在时钟校准中纳入不确定性。第四代方法(自2012年以来)允许速率在不同分支间变化,但不需要事先选择统计模型来描述速率变化或物种形成模型的规范。第四代方法具有与贝叶斯方法相当的高精度,且速度要快几个数量级,能够利用基因组规模的数据生成包含数千个物种的可靠时间树。我们发现第二代研究的早期时间估计与第三代和第四代研究的结果相似,这表明方法上的进步并没有从根本上改变生命的时间树,而是通过纳入更多物种促进了时间估计。尽管如此,我们迫切需要测试第三代和第四代方法的准确性和精确性,包括它们在分析大型系统发育和数据集时对先验假设错误设定的稳健性。