Phylogenomics Reveals Ancient Gene Tree Discordance in the Amphibian Tree of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular phylogenies have yielded strong support for many parts of the amphibian Tree of Life, but poor support for the resolution of deeper nodes, including relationships among families and orders. To clarify these relationships, we provide a phylogenomic perspective on amphibian relationships by developing a taxon-specific Anchored Hybrid Enrichment protocol targeting hundreds of conserved exons which are effective across the class. After obtaining data from 220 loci for 286 species (representing 94% of the families and 44% of the genera), we estimate a phylogeny for extant amphibians and identify gene tree-species tree conflict across the deepest branches of the amphibian phylogeny. We perform locus-by-locus genealogical interrogation of alternative topological hypotheses for amphibian monophyly, focusing on interordinal relationships. We find that phylogenetic signal deep in the amphibian phylogeny varies greatly across loci in a manner that is consistent with incomplete lineage sorting in the ancestral lineage of extant amphibians. Our results overwhelmingly support amphibian monophyly and a sister relationship between frogs and salamanders, consistent with the Batrachia hypothesis. Species tree analyses converge on a small set of topological hypotheses for the relationships among extant amphibian families. These results clarify several contentious portions of the amphibian Tree of Life, which in conjunction with a set of vetted fossil calibrations, support a surprisingly younger timescale for crown and ordinal amphibian diversification than previously reported. More broadly, our study provides insight into the sources, magnitudes, and heterogeneity of support across loci in phylogenomic data sets.[AIC; Amphibia; Batrachia; Phylogeny; gene tree-species tree discordance; genomics; information theory.].
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".