↓ Skip to main content

Time dependency of foamy virus evolutionary rate estimates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Time dependency of foamy virus evolutionary rate estimates
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12862-015-0408-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pakorn Aiewsakun, Aris Katzourakis

Abstract

It appears that substitution rate estimates co-vary very strongly with their timescale of measurement; the shorter the timescale, the higher the estimated value. Foamy viruses have a long history of co-speciation with their hosts, and one of the lowest estimated rates of evolution among viruses. However, when their rate of evolution is estimated over short timescales, it is more reminiscent of the rapid rates seen in other RNA viruses. This discrepancy between their short-term and long-term rates could be explained by the time-dependency of substitution rate estimates. Several empirical models have been proposed and used to correct for the time-dependent rate phenomenon (TDRP), such as a vertically-translated exponential rate decay model and a power-law rate decay model. Nevertheless, at present, it is still unclear which model best describes the rate dynamics. Here, we use foamy viruses as a case study to empirically describe the phenomenon and to determine how to correct rate estimates for its effects. Four empirical models were investigated: (i) a vertically-translated exponential rate decay model, (ii) a simple exponential rate decay model, (iii) a vertically-translated power-law rate decay model, and (iv) a simple power-law rate decay model. Our results suggest that the TDRP is likely responsible for the large discrepancy observed in foamy virus short-term and long-term rate estimates, and the simple power-law rate decay model is the best model for inferring evolutionary timescales. Furthermore, we demonstrated that, within the Bayesian phylogenetic framework, currently available molecular clocks can severely bias evolutionary date estimates, indicating that they are inadequate for correcting for the TDRP. Our analyses also suggest that different viral lineages may have different TDRP dynamics, and this may bias date estimates if it is unaccounted for. As evolutionary rate estimates are dependent on their measurement timescales, their values must be used and interpreted under the context of the timescale of rate estimation. Extrapolating rate estimates across large timescales for evolutionary inferences can severely bias the outcomes. Given that the TDRP is widespread in nature but has been noted only recently the estimated timescales of many viruses may need to be reconsidered and re-estimated. Our models could be used as a guideline to further improve current phylogenetic inference tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,896,698
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,815
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,081
of 278,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#39
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.