Calibration edit

The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates. For viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies—two areas of evolutionary biology where it is possible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale—the dates of the intermediate samples can be used to more precisely calibrate the molecular clock. However, most phylogenies require that the molecular clock be calibrated against independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record.[1] There are two general methods for calibrating the molecular clock using fossil data: node calibration and tip calibration.[2]

Node calibration, also referred to as node dating, is a method for phylogeny calibration that is done by placing fossil constraints at nodes. A node calibration fossil is the oldest discovered representative of that clade, which is used to constrain its minimum age. Due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, the true most recent common ancestor of a clade will likely never be found.[2] In order to account for this in node calibration analyses, a maximum clade age must be estimated. Determining the maximum clade age is challenging because it relies on negative evidence—the absence of older fossils in that clade. There are a number of methods for deriving the maximum clade age using birth-death models, fossil stratigraphic distribution analyses, or taphonomic controls.[3] Once the minimum and maximum clade age estimates have been determined, a prior probability of the divergence time is established and used to calibrate the clock based on the estimated age of that node. There are several prior probability distributions including normall, lognormal, exponential, gamma, uniform, etc) that can be used to express the probability of the true age of divergence relative to the age of the fossil.[4] The placement of fossil-constrained nodes on the tree informs the placement of the unconstrained nodes, giving divergence date estimates across the phylogeny. Historical methods of clock calibration could only make use of a single fossil constraint (non-parametric rate smoothing),[5] while modern analyses (BEAST[6] and r8s[7]) allow for the use of multiple fossils to calibrate the molecular clock. Simulation studies have shown that increasing the number of fossil constraints in BEAST analyses increases the accuracy of divergence time estimation.[8]

Tip calibration, also referred to as tip dating, is a method of molecular clock calibration in which fossils are treated as taxa and placed on the tips of the tree. This is achieved by creating a matrix that includes a molecular dataset for the extant taxa along with a morphological dataset for both the extinct and the extant taxa.[3] Unlike node calibration, this method reconstructs the tree topology and places the fossils simultaneously. Molecular and morphological models work together simultaneously, allowing morphology to inform the placement of fossils.[2] Tip calibration makes use of all relevant fossil taxa during clock calibration, rather than relying on only the oldest fossil of each clade. This method does not rely on the interpretation of negative evidence to infer maximum clade ages.[3] One approach to tip calibration, called total evidence dating, goes a step further by simultaneously estimating fossil placement, topology, and the evolutionary timescale. In this method, the age of a fossil can inform its phylogenetic position in addition to morphology. By allowing all aspects of tree reconstruction to occur simultaneously, the risk of biased results is decreased.[2] This approach has been improved upon by pairing it with different models. One current method of molecular clock calibration is total evidence dating paired with the fossilized birth-death (FBD) model and a model of morphological evolution.[9] The FBD model is novel in that it allows for “sampled ancestors,” which are fossil taxa that are the direct ancestor of a living taxon or lineage. This allows fossils to be placed on a branch above an extant organism, rather than being confined to the tips.[10]

References edit

  1. ^ Benton, M. J.; Donoghue, P. C. J. (2007). "Paleontological evidence to date the Tree of Life". Molecular Biology & Evolution. 24 (1): 26–53. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl150. PMID 17047029. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d Donoghue, P.C.J.; Ziheng, Y. (2016). "The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 371 (1): 20160020. doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0020. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ a b c O'Reilly, J. E.; Mario D. R. (2015). "Dating Tips for Divergence-Time Estimation". Trends in Genetics. 31 (11): 637–650. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.08.001. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Drummond, A.; Suchard, M. A. (2012). "Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7" (PDF). Molecular biology and evolution. 29: 1969–1973.
  5. ^ Sanderson, M (1997). "A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy" (PDF). Molecular biology and evolution. 14: 1218–1231.
  6. ^ Drummond, A.; Rambaut, A. (2007). "BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees" (PDF). BMC evolutionary biology. 7: 214.
  7. ^ Sanderson, M (2003). "r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock" (PDF). Bioinformatics. 19: 301–302.
  8. ^ Zheng Y.; Wiens J. J. (2015). "Do missing data influence the accuracy of divergence-time estimation with BEAST?". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 85 (1): 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2015.02.002. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Heath, T. A.; Huelsenbeck, J. P. (2014). "The fossilized birth–death process for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates". PNAS. 111 (29): E2957–E2966. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319091111. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Gavryushkina, A.; Heath, T. A. (2016). "Bayesian Total-Evidence Dating Reveals the Recent Crown Radiation of Penguins". Systematic Biology (1): 1–17. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syw060. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)