Rooting and Dating Large SARS-CoV-2 Trees by Modeling Evolutionary Rate as a Function of Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all published rooting and dating studies on SARS-CoV-2 assumed that (1) evolutionary rate does not change over time although different lineages can have different evolutionary rates (uncorrelated relaxed clock), and (2) a zoonotic transmission occurred in Wuhan and the culprit was immediately captured, so that only the SARS-CoV-2 genomes obtained in 2019 and the first few months of 2020 (resulting from the first wave of the global expansion from Wuhan) are sufficient for dating the common ancestor. Empirical data contradict the first assumption. The second assumption is not warranted because mounting evidence suggests the presence of early SARS-CoV-2 lineages cocirculating with the Wuhan strains. Large trees with SARS-CoV-2 genomes beyond the first few months are needed to increase the likelihood of finding SARS-CoV-2 lineages that might have originated at the same time as (or even before) those early Wuhan strains. I extended a previously published rapid rooting method to model evolutionary rate as a linear function instead of a constant. This substantially improves the dating of the common ancestor of sampled SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Based on two large trees with 83,688 and 970,777 high-quality and full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes that contain complete sample collection dates, the common ancestor was dated to 12 June 2019 and 7 July 2019 with the two trees, respectively. The two data sets would give dramatically different or even absurd estimates if the rate was treated as a constant. The large trees were also crucial for overcoming the high rate-heterogeneity among different viral lineages. The improved method was implemented in the software TRAD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".