Rooting the tree of life: the phylogenetic jury is still out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to shed light on difficulties in rooting the tree of life (ToL) and to explore the (sociological) reasons underlying the limited interest in accurately addressing this fundamental issue. First, we briefly review the difficulties plaguing phylogenetic inference and the ways to improve the modelling of the substitution process, which is highly heterogeneous, both across sites and over time. We further observe that enriched taxon samplings, better gene samplings and clever data removal strategies have led to numerous revisions of the ToL, and that these improved shallow phylogenies nearly always relocate simple organisms higher in the ToL provided that long-branch attraction artefacts are kept at bay. Then, we note that, despite the flood of genomic data available since 2000, there has been a surprisingly low interest in inferring the root of the ToL. Furthermore, the rare studies dealing with this question were almost always based on methods dating from the 1990s that have been shown to be inaccurate for much more shallow issues! This leads us to argue that the current consensus about a bacterial root for the ToL can be traced back to the prejudice of Aristotle's Great Chain of Beings, in which simple organisms are ancestors of more complex life forms. Finally, we demonstrate that even the best models cannot yet handle the complexity of the evolutionary process encountered both at shallow depth, when the outgroup is too distant, and at the level of the inter-domain relationships. Altogether, we conclude that the commonly accepted bacterial root is still unproven and that the root of the ToL should be revisited using phylogenomic supermatrices to ensure that new evidence for eukaryogenesis, such as the recently described Lokiarcheota, is interpreted in a sound phylogenetic framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".