Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Mistreating birth-death models as priors in phylogenetic analysis compromises our ability to compare models

Michael R. May, Carl J. Rothfels
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.12.452074
Michael R. May
1University Herbarium and Department of Integrative Biology, University of Californias, Berkeley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mrmay@berkeley.edu
Carl J. Rothfels
1University Herbarium and Department of Integrative Biology, University of Californias, Berkeley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Time-calibrated phylogenetic trees are fundamental to a wide range of evolutionary studies. Typically, these trees are inferred in a Bayesian framework, with the phylogeny itself treated as a parameter with a prior distribution (a “tree prior”). This prior distribution is often a variant of the stochastic birth-death process, which models speciation events, extinction events, and sampling events (of extinct and/or extant lineages). However, the samples produced by this process are observations, so their probability should be viewed as a likelihood rather than a prior probability. We show that treating the samples as part of the prior results in incorrect marginal likelihood estimates and can result in model-comparison approaches disfavoring the best model within a set of candidate models. The ability to correctly compare the fit of competing tree models is critical to accurate phylogenetic estimates, especially of divergence times, and also to studying the processes that govern lineage diversification. We outline potential remedies, and provide guidance for researchers interested in comparing the fit of competing tree models.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Footnotes

  • https://github.com/mikeryanmay/bd_bayes_factors/releases/tag/initial_submission

  • http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5072533

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 12, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mistreating birth-death models as priors in phylogenetic analysis compromises our ability to compare models
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Mistreating birth-death models as priors in phylogenetic analysis compromises our ability to compare models
Michael R. May, Carl J. Rothfels
bioRxiv 2021.07.12.452074; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.12.452074
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Mistreating birth-death models as priors in phylogenetic analysis compromises our ability to compare models
Michael R. May, Carl J. Rothfels
bioRxiv 2021.07.12.452074; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.12.452074

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Evolutionary Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3606)
  • Biochemistry (7580)
  • Bioengineering (5529)
  • Bioinformatics (20808)
  • Biophysics (10335)
  • Cancer Biology (7986)
  • Cell Biology (11645)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6610)
  • Ecology (10214)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13625)
  • Genetics (9545)
  • Genomics (12851)
  • Immunology (7925)
  • Microbiology (19553)
  • Molecular Biology (7668)
  • Neuroscience (42128)
  • Paleontology (308)
  • Pathology (1258)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2203)
  • Physiology (3268)
  • Plant Biology (7045)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1294)
  • Synthetic Biology (1951)
  • Systems Biology (5428)
  • Zoology (1118)