The TreeBASE portal is an important and rapidly growing repository of phylogenetic data. The R statistical environment has also become a primary tool for applied phylogenetic analyses across a range of questions, from comparative evolution to community ecology to conservation planning.
We have developed
treebase, an open-source (freely available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/treebase) for the R programming environment, providing simplified, programmatic and interactive access to phylogenetic data in the TreeBASE repository.
We illustrate how this package creates a bridge between the TreeBASE repository and the rapidly growing collection of R packages for phylogenetics that can reduce barriers to discovery and integration across phylogenetic research.
We show how the
treebasepackage can be used to facilitate replication of previous studies and testing of methods and hypotheses across a large sample of phylogenies, which may help make such important practices more common.
R, software, API, TreeBASE, database, programmatic, workflow
Applications that use phylogenetic information as part of their analyses are becoming increasingly central to both evolutionary and ecological research. The exponential growth in genetic sequence data available for all forms of life has driven rapid advances in the methods that can infer the phylogenetic relationships and divergence times across different taxa (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001; Stamatakis 2006; Drummond and Rambaut 2007). Once again the product of one field has become the raw data of the next. Unfortunately, while the discipline of bioinformatics has emerged to help harness and curate the wealth of genetic data with cutting edge computer science, statistics, and Internet technology, its counterpart in evolutionary informatics remains “scattered, poorly documented, and in formats that impede discovery and integration” (Parr et al. 2011). Our goal in developing the
treebase package is to provide steps to reduce these challenges through programmatic and interactive access between the repositories that store this data and the software tools commonly used to analyse them.
The R statistical environment (R Development Core Team 2012) has become a dominant platform for researchers using phylogenetic data to address a rapidly expanding set of questions in ecological and evolutionary processes. These methods include, but are not limited to, ancestral state reconstruction (Paradis 2004; Butler and King 2004), diversification analysis (Paradis 2004; Rabosky 2006; Harmon et al. 2008), identifying trait dependent speciation and extinction rates, (Fitzjohn 2010; Goldberg, Lancaster, and Ree 2011; Stadler 2011b), quantifying the rate and tempo of trait evolution (Butler and King 2004; Harmon et al. 2008; Eastman et al. 2011), identifying evolutionary influences and proxies for community ecology (Webb, Ackerly, and Kembel 2008; Kembel et al. 2010), connecting phylogeny data to climate patterns (Warren, Glor, and Turelli 2008; Evans et al. 2009), and simulation of speciation and character evolution (Harmon et al. 2008; Stadler 2011a; Boettiger, Coop, and Ralph 2012), as well as various manipulations and visualizations of phylogenetic data (Paradis 2004; Schliep 2010; Jombart, Balloux, and Dray 2010; Revell et al. 2011). A more comprehensive list of R packages by analysis type is available on the phylogenetics taskview, http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Phylogenetics.html. A few programs for applied phylogenetic methods are written for environments outside the R environment, incuding Java (Maddison and Maddison 2011), MATLAB (Blomberg, Garland, and Ives 2003) and Python (Sukumaran and Holder 2010) and online interfaces (Martins 2004).
TreeBASE (http://treebase.org) is an online repository of phylogenetic data (e.g. trees of species, populations, or genes) that have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, book, thesis or conference proceedings (Sanderson et al. 1994; Morell 1996). The database can be searched through an online interface which allows users to find a phylogenetic tree from a particular publication, author or taxa of interest. TreeBASE provides an application programming interface (API) that lets computer applications make queries to the database. Our
treebase package uses this API to create a direct link between this data and the R environment. This has several immediate and important benefits:
Data discovery. Users can leverage the rich, higher-level programming environment provided by the R environment to better identify data sets appropriate for their research by iteratively constructing queries for datasets that match appropriate metadata requirements.
Programmatic data access. Many tasks that are theoretically made possible by the creation of the TreeBASE repository are not pursued because they would be too laborious for an exploratory analysis. The ability to use programmatic access across data sets to automatically download and perform a reproduciblye and systematic analysis using the rich set of tools available in R opens up new avenues for research.
Automatic updating. The TreeBASE repository is expanding rapidly. The scriptable nature of analyses run with our
treebasepackage means that a study can be rerun on the latest version of the repository without additional effort but with potential new information.
Programmatic Web Access
The Treebase repository makes data accessible by Web queries through a RESTful (REpresentational State Transfer) interface, which supplies search conditions in the address URL. The repository returns the requested data in XML (extensible markup language) format. The
treebase package uses the
RCurl package (Lang 2012a) to make queries over the Web to the repository, and the
XML package (Lang 2012b) to parse the Web page returned by the repository into meaningful R data objects. While these querying and parsing functions comprise most of the code provided in the
treebase package, they are hidden from the end user who can interact with these rich data retrieval and manipulation tools to access data from these remote repositories in much the same way as data locally available on the users hard-disk.
treebase package allows these queries to be made directly from R, just as a user would make them from the Web browser. This enables a user to construct more complicated filters than permitted by the Web interface, and allows the user to maintain a record of the queries they used to collect their data as an R script. Scripting the data-gathering process helps reduce errors and assists in replicating the analysis later, either by the authors or other researchers (Peng et al. 2011).
search_treebase function forms the base of the
treebase package. Table 1 lists each of the types of queries available through the
search_treebase function. This list can also be found in the function documentation through the R command
Any of the queries available on the Web interface can now be made directly from R, including downloading and importing a phylogeny into the R interface. For instance, one can search for phylogenies containing dolphin taxa, "Delphinus," or all phylogenies submitted by a given author, "Huelsenbeck" using the R commands
search_treebase("Delphinus", by="taxon") search_treebase("Huelsenbeck", by="author")
This function returns the matching phylogenies into R as an R object, ready for analysis. The package documentation provides many examples of possible queries.Queries available in
search_treebase. The first argument is the keyword used in the query such as an author's name and the second argument indicates the type of query (i.e. "author").
|abstract||search terms in the publication abstract|
|author||match authors in the publication|
|subject||Matches in the subject terms|
|doi||The unique object identifier for the publication|
|ncbi||NCBI identifier number for the taxon|
|kind.tree||Kind of tree (Gene tree, species tree, barcode tree)|
|type.tree||Type of tree (Consensus or Single)|
|ntax||Number of taxa in the matrix|
|quality||A quality score for the tree, if it has been rated.|
|study||Match words in the title of the study or publication|
|taxon||Taxon scientific name|
|id.study||TreeBASE study ID|
|id.tree||TreeBASE's unique tree identifier (Tr.id)|
|id.taxon||Taxon identifier number from TreeBase|
|tree||The title for the tree|
Accessing all phylogenies
For certain applications a user may wish to download all the available phylogenies from TreeBASE. Using the
cache_treebase function allows a user to download a local copy of all trees. Because direct database dumps are not available from treebase.org, this function has intentional delays to avoid overtaxing the TreeBASE servers, and should be allowed a full day to run.
treebase <- cache_treebase()
Once run, the cache is saved compactly in memory where it can be easily and quickly restored. For convenience, the
treebase package comes with a copy already cached, which can be loaded into memory.
All of the examples shown in this manuscript are run as shown using the
knitr package for authoring dynamic documents (Xie 2012), which helps ensure the results shown are reproducible. These examples can be updated by copying and pasting the code shown into the R terminal, or by recompiling the entire manuscript from the source files found on the development Web page for the TreeBASE package, github.com/ropensci/treebase. Data was accessed to produce the examples shown on Wed Jun 27 11:01:42 2012.
Data discovery in TreeBASE
Data discovery involves searching for existing data that meets certain desired characteristics. Such searches take advantage of metadata -- summary information describing the data entries provided in the repository. The Web repository uses separate interfaces (APIs) to access metadata describing the publications associated with the data entered, such as the publisher, year of publication, etc., and a different interface to describe the metadata associated with an individual phylogeny, such as the number of taxa or the kind of tree (e.g. Gene tree versus Species tree). The
treebase package can query these individual sources of metadata separately, but this information is most powerful when used in concert -- allowing the construction of complicated searches that cannot be automated through the Web interface. The
metadata function updates a list of all available metadata from both APIs and returns this information as an R
meta <- metadata()
From the length of the metadata list we see that there are currently 3164 published studies in the database.
The fields provided by
metadata are listed in Table II.
|Study.id||TreeBASE study ID|
|Tree.id||TreeBASE's unique tree identifier|
|kind||Kind of tree (Gene tree, species tree, barcode tree)|
|type||Type of tree (Consensus or Single)|
|quality||A quality score for the tree, if it has been rated.|
|ntaxa||Number of taxa in the matrix|
|date||Year the study was published|
|author||First author in the publication|
|title||The title of the publication|
Metadata can also be used to reveal trends in the data deposition which may be useful in identifying patterns or biases in research or emerging potential types of data. As a simple example, we look at trends in the submission patterns of publishers over time,
date <- meta[["date"]] pub <- meta[["publisher"]]
Many journals have only a few submissions, so we will label any not in the top ten contributing journals as “Other”:
topten <- sort(table(pub), decreasing=TRUE)[1:10] meta[["publisher"]][!(pub %in% names(topten))] <- "Other"
We plot the distribution of publication years for phylogenies deposited in TreeBASE, color coding by publisher in Fig [fig:1].
library(ggplot2) ggplot(meta) + geom_bar(aes(date, fill = publisher))
Typically we are interested in the metadata describing the phylogenies themselves rather than just in the publications in which they appeared. Phylogenetic metadata includes features such as the number of taxa in the tree, a quality score (if available), kind of tree (gene tree, species tree, or barcode tree) or whether the phylogeny represents a consensus tree from a distribution or just a single estimate.
Even simple queries can illustrate the advantage of interacting with TreeBASE data through an R interface has over the Web interface. A Web interface can only perform the tasks built in by design. For instance, rather than performing six separate searches to determine the number of consensus vs single phylogenies available for each king of tree, we can construct a 2 by 2 table with a single line of code,
Reproducible research has become a topic of increasing interest in recent years, and facilitating access to data and using scripts that can replicate analyses can help lower barriers to the replication of statistical and computational results (Schwab, Karrenbach, and Claerbout 2000; Gentleman and Temple Lang 2004; Peng 2011). The
treebase package facilitates this process, as we illustrate in a simple example.
Consider the shifts in speciation rate identified by Derryberry et al. (2011) on a phylogeny of ovenbirds and treecreepers. We will seek to not only replicate the results the authors obtained by fitting the models provided in the R package
laser (Rabosky 2006), but also compare them against methods presented in Stadler (2011b) and implemented in the package
TreePar, which permits speciation models that were not available to Derryberry et al. (2011) at the time of their study.
Obtaining the tree
By drawing on the rich data manipulation tools available in R which may be familiar to the large R phylogenetics community, the
treebase package allows us to construct richer queries than are possible through the TreeBASE Web interface alone.
The most expedient way to identify the data uses the digital object identifer (doi) at the top of most articles, which we use in a call to the
search_treebase function, such as
results <- search_treebase("10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01374.x", "doi")
The search returns a list, since some publications can contain many trees. In this case our phylogeny is in the first element of the list.
Having imported the phylogenetic tree corresponding to this study, we can quickly replicate their analysis of which diversification process best fits the data. These steps can be easily implemented using the phylogenetics packages we have just mentioned.
For instance, we can calculate the branching times of each node on the phylogeny,
bt <- branching.times(derryberry)
and then begin to fit each model the authors have tested, such as the pure birth model,
yule = pureBirth(bt)
or the birth-death model,
birth_death = bd(bt)
The estimated models are now loaded into the active R session where we can further explore them as we go along. The appendix shows the estimation and comparison of all the models originally considered by Derryberry et al. (2011).
In this fast-moving field, new methods often become available between the time of submission and time of publication of a manuscript. For instance, the more sophisticated models introduced in Stadler (2011b) were not used in this study, but have since been made available in the recent package,
TreePar. These richer models permit a shift the speciation or extinction rate to occur multiple times throughout the course of the phylogeny.
We load the new method and format the phylogeny using the R commands:
library(TreePar) x <- sort(getx(derryberry), decreasing = TRUE)
Here we consider models that have up to 4 different rates in Yule models, (The syntax in
TreePar is slightly cumbersome, the [] indicates where this command happens to store the output models.)
As a comparison of speciation models is not the focus of this paper, the complete code and explanation for these steps is provided as an appendix. Happily, this analysis confirms the author's original conclusions, even when the more general models of Stadler (2011b) are considered.
Analyses across many phylogenies
Large scale comparative analyses that seek to characterize evolutionary patterns across many phylogenies are increasingly common in phylogenetic methods (e.g. McPeek and Brown 2007; Phillimore and Price 2008; McPeek 2008; Quental and Marshall 2010; Davies et al. 2011). Sometimes referred to by their authors as meta-analyses, these approaches have focused on re-analyzing phylogenetic trees collected from many different earlier publications. This is a more direct approach than the traditional concept of meta-analysis where statistical results from earlier studies are weighted by their sample size without being able to access the raw data. Because the identical analysis can be repeated on the original data from each study, this approach avoids some of the statistical challenges inherent in traditional meta-analyses summarizing results across heterogeneous approaches.
To date, researchers have gone through heroic efforts simply to assemble these data sets from the literature. As described in McPeek and Brown (2007); (emphasis added)
One data set was based on 163 published species-level molecular phylogenies of arthropods, chordates, and mollusks. A PDF format file of each article was obtained, and a digital snapshot of the figure was taken in Adobe Acrobat 7.0. This image was transferred to a PowerPoint (Microsoft) file and printed on a laser printer. The phylogenies included in this study are listed in the appendix. All branch lengths were measured by hand from these printed sheets using dial calipers.
Despite the recent emergence of digital tools that could now facilitate this analysis without mechanical calipers, (e.g. treesnatcher, Laubach and von Haeseler 2007), it is easier and less error-prone to pull properly formatted phylogenies from the database for this purpose. Moreover, as the available data increases with subsequent publications, updating earlier meta-analyses can become increasingly tedious. Using
treebase, a user can apply any analysis they have written for a single phylogeny across the entire collection of suitable phylogenies in TreeBASE, which can help overcome such barriers to discovery and integration at this large scale. Using the functions we introduce aboved, we provide a simple example that computes the gamma statistic of Pybus and Harvey (2000), which provides an measure of when speciation patterns differ from the popular birth-death model.
Tests across many phylogenies
A standard test of this is the gamma statistic of Pybus and Harvey (2000) which tests the null hypothesis that the rates of speciation and extinction are constant. The gamma statistic is normally distributed about 0 for a pure birth or birth-death process, values larger than 0 indicate that internal nodes are closer to the tip then expected, while values smaller than 0 indicate nodes farther from the tip then expected. In this section, we collect all phylogenetic trees from TreeBASE and select those with branch length data that we can time-calibrate using tools available in R. We can then calculate the distribution of this statistic for all available trees, and compare these results with those from the analyses mentioned above.
treebase package provides a compressed cache of the phylogenies available in treebase. This cache can be automatically updated with the
treebase <- cache_treebase()
which may require a day or so to complete, and will save a file in the working directory named with treebase and the date obtained. For convenience, we can load the cached copy distributed with the
We will only be able to use those phylogenies that include branch length data. We drop those that do not from the data set,
have <- have_branchlength(treebase) branchlengths <- treebase[have]
Like most comparative methods, this analysis will require ultrametric trees (branch lengths proportional to time, rather than to mutational steps). As most of these phylogenies are calibrated with branch length proportional to mutational step, we must time-calibrate each of them first.
timetree <- function(tree) try( chronoMPL(multi2di(tree)) ) tt <- drop_nontrees(sapply(branchlengths, timetree))
At this point we have 1,396 time-calibrated phylogenies over which we will apply the diversification rate analysis. Computing the gamma test statistic to identify deviations from the constant-rates model takes a single line,
gammas <- sapply(tt, gammaStat)
and the resulting distribution of the statistic across available trees is shown Fig 2. While researchers have often considered this statistic for individual phylogenies, we are unaware of any study that has visualized the empirical distribution of this statistic across thousands of phylogenies. Both the overall distribution, which appears slightly skewed towards positive values indicating increasing rate of speciation near the tips, and the position and identity of outlier phylogenies are patterns that may introduce new hypotheses and potential directions for further exploration.
Distribution of the gamma statistic across phylogenies in TreeBASE. Strongly positive values are indicative of an increasing rate of evolution (excess of nodes near the tips), very negative values indicate an early burst of diversification (an excess of nodes near the root).
While we have focused on examples that require no additional data beyond the phylogeny, a wide array of methods combine this data with information about the traits, geography, or ecological community of the taxa represented. In such cases we would need programmatic access to the trait data as well as the phylogeny. The Dryad digital repository (http://datadryad.org) is an effort in this direction. While programmatic access to the repository is possible through the
rdryad package (Chamberlain, Boettiger, and Ram 2012), variation in data formatting must first be overcome before similar direct access to the data is possible. Dedicated databases such as FishBASE (http://fishbase.org) may be another alternative, where morphological data can be queried for a list of species using the
rfishbase package (Boettiger). The development of similar software for programmatic data access will rapidly extend the space and scale of possible analyses.
The recent advent of mandatory data archiving in many of the major journals publishing phylognetics-based research (e.g. Fairbairn 2010; Piwowar, Vision, and Whitlock 2011; Whitlock et al. 2010), is a particularly promising development that should continue to fuel the trend of submissions seen in Fig. 1. Accompanied by faster and more inexpensive techniques of NextGen sequencing, and the rapid expansion in phylogenetic applications, we anticipate this rapid growth in available phylogenies will continue. Faced with this flood of data, programmatic access becomes not only increasingly powerful but an increasingly necessary way to ensure we can still see the forest for all the trees.
CB wishes to thank S. Price for feedback on the manuscript, the TreeBASE developer team for building and supporting the repository, and all contributers to TreeBASE. CB is supported by a Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship from the Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG02-97ER25308.
Blomberg, S. P., JR Theodore Garland, and A. R. Ives. 2003. “Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile.” Evolution 57: 717–745. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118867878/abstract.
Boettiger, Carl. “rfishbase: R Interface to FishBASE.”
Boettiger, Carl, Graham Coop, and Peter Ralph. 2012. “Is your phylogeny informative? Measuring the power of comparative methods.” Evolution (jan). doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01574.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01574.x.
Butler, Marguerite A., and Aaron A. King. 2004. “Phylogenetic Comparative Analysis: A Modeling Approach for Adaptive Evolution.” The American Naturalist 164 (dec): 683–695. doi:10.1086/426002. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426002.
Chamberlain, Scott, Carl Boettiger, and Karthik Ram. 2012. “rdryad: Dryad API interface.” http://www.github.com/ropensci/rdryad .
Davies, T. Jonathan, Andrew P. Allen, Luís Borda-de-Água, Jim Regetz, and Carlos J. Melián. 2011. “NEUTRAL BIODIVERSITY THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE IMBALANCE OF PHYLOGENETIC TREES BUT NOT THE TEMPO OF THEIR DIVERSIFICATION.” Evolution 65 (jul): 1841–1850. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01265.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01265.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21729042.
Derryberry, Elizabeth P., Santiago Claramunt, Graham Derryberry, R. Terry Chesser, Joel Cracraft, Alexandre Aleixo, Jorge Pérez-Emán, J. V. Remsen Jr, and Robb T. Brumfield. 2011. “LINEAGE DIVERSIFICATION AND MORPHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IN A LARGE-SCALE CONTINENTAL RADIATION: THE NEOTROPICAL OVENBIRDS AND WOODCREEPERS (AVES: FURNARIIDAE).” Evolution (jul). doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01374.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01374.x.
Drummond, Alexei J., and Andrew Rambaut. 2007. “BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees.” BMC evolutionary biology 7 (jan): 214. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-214. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2247476\&tool=pmcentrez\&rendertype=abstract.
Eastman, Jonathan M., Michael E. Alfaro, Paul Joyce, Andrew L. Hipp, and Luke J. Harmon. 2011. “A NOVEL COMPARATIVE METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SHIFTS IN THE RATE OF CHARACTER EVOLUTION ON TREES.” Evolution 65 (jul): 3578–3589. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01401.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01401.x.
Evans, Margaret E. K., Stephen a Smith, Rachel S. Flynn, and Michael J. Donoghue. 2009. “Climate, niche evolution, and diversification of the ‘bird-cage’ evening primroses (Oenothera, sections Anogra and Kleinia).” The American naturalist 173 (feb): 225–40. doi:10.1086/595757. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19072708.
Fairbairn, Daphne J. 2010. “THE ADVENT OF MANDATORY DATA ARCHIVING.” Evolution (nov). doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01182.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01182.x.
Fitzjohn, Richard G. 2010. “Quantitative Traits and Diversification.” Systematic biology 59 (sep): 619–633. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq053. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884813.
Gentleman, Robert, and D. Temple Lang. 2004. “Statistical analyses and reproducible research.” Bioconductor Project Working Papers: 2. http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001\&context=bioconductor.
Goldberg, Emma E., Lesley T. Lancaster, and Richard H. Ree. 2011. “Phylogenetic Inference of Reciprocal Effects between Geographic Range Evolution and Diversification.” Systematic biology 60 (may): 451–465. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syr046. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21551125.
Harmon, Luke J., Jason T. Weir, Chad D. Brock, Richard E. Glor, and Wendell Challenger. 2008. “Geiger: investigating evolutionary radiations.” Bioinformatics 24: 129–131. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm538.
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Fredrik Ronquist. 2001. “MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 17 (aug): 754–5. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11524383.
Jombart, Thibaut, François Balloux, and Stéphane Dray. 2010. “Adephylo: New Tools for Investigating the Phylogenetic Signal in Biological Traits.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 26 (aug): 1907–9. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq292. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20525823.
Kembel, Steven W., Peter D. Cowan, Matthew R. Helmus, William K. Cornwell, Helene Morlon, David D. Ackerly, Simon P. Blomberg, and Campbell O. Webb. 2010. “Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 26 (jun): 1463–4. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20395285.
Lang, Duncan Temple. 2012a. “RCurl: General network (HTTP/FTP/...) client interface for R.” http://cran.r-project.org/package=RCurl.
———. 2012b. “XML: Tools for parsing and generating XML within R and S-Plus.” http://cran.r-project.org/package=XML.
Laubach, Thomas, and Arndt von Haeseler. 2007. “TreeSnatcher: coding trees from images.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 23 (dec): 3384–5. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm438. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17893085.
Maddison, W. P., and D. R. Maddison. 2011. “Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis.” http://mesquiteproject.org.
Martins, E. P. 2004. “COMPARE, version Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data.” Bloomington IN.: Department of Biology, Indiana University. http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/.
McPeek, Mark a. 2008. “The ecological dynamics of clade diversification and community assembly.” The American naturalist 172 (dec): 270. doi:10.1086/593137. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18851684.
McPeek, Mark a, and Jonathan M. Brown. 2007. “Clade age and not diversification rate explains species richness among animal taxa.” The American naturalist 169 (apr): 97. doi:10.1086/512135. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17427118.
Morell, V. 1996. “TreeBASE: the roots of phylogeny.” Science 273: 569. doi:10.1126/science.273.5275.569. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.273.5275.569.
Paradis, Emmanuel. 2004. “APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language.” Bioinformatics 20: 289–290. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412. http://www.bioinformatics.oupjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412.
Parr, Cynthia S., Robert Guralnick, Nico Cellinese, and Roderic D. M. Page. 2011. “Evolutionary informatics: unifying knowledge about the diversity of life.” Trends in ecology & evolution 27 (dec): 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22154516.
Peng, Changhui, Joel Guiot, Haibin Wu, Hong Jiang, and Yiqi Luo. 2011. “Integrating models with data in ecology and palaeoecology: advances towards a model-data fusion approach.” Ecology letters (mar). doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01603.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366814.
Peng, R. D. 2011. “Reproducible Research in Computational Science.” Science 334 (dec): 1226–1227. doi:10.1126/science.1213847. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1213847.
Phillimore, Albert B., and Trevor D. Price. 2008. “Density-dependent cladogenesis in birds.” PLoS biology 6 (mar): 71. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060071. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2270327\&tool=pmcentrez\&rendertype=abstract.
Piwowar, Heather A., Todd J. Vision, and Michael C. Whitlock. 2011. “Data archiving is a good investment.” Nature 473 (may): 285–285. doi:10.1038/473285a. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/473285a.
Pybus, O. G., and P. H. Harvey. 2000. “Testing macro-evolutionary models using incomplete molecular phylogenies.” Proceedings of The Royal Society B 267 (nov): 2267–72. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1278. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1690817\&tool=pmcentrez\&rendertype=abstract.
Quental, Tiago B., and Charles R. Marshall. 2010. “Diversity dynamics: molecular phylogenies need the fossil record.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution (jun): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.002. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534710001011.
R Development Core Team, The. 2012. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
Rabosky, Daniel L. 2006. “LASER: a maximum likelihood toolkit for detecting temporal shifts in diversification rates from molecular phylogenies.” Evolutionary bioinformatics online 2 (jan): 273–6. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2674670\&tool=pmcentrez\&rendertype=abstract.
Revell, Liam J., D. Luke Mahler, Pedro R. Peres-Neto, and Benjamin D. Redelings. 2011. “a New Phylogenetic Method for Identifying Exceptional Phenotypic Diversification.” Evolution (aug). doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01435.x. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01435.x.
Sanderson, M. J., M. J. Donoghue, W. Piel, and T. Eriksson. 1994. “TreeBASE: a prototype database of phylogenetic analyses and an interactive tool for browsing the phylogeny of life.” American Journal of Botany 81: 183.
Schliep, Klaus Peter. 2010. “phangorn: Phylogenetic analysis in R.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 27 (dec): 592–593. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq706. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21169378.
Schwab, M., N. Karrenbach, and J. Claerbout. 2000. “Making scientific computations reproducible.” Computing in Science & Engineering 2: 61–67. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=881708.
Stadler, Tanja. 2011a. “Simulating Trees with a Fixed Number of Extant Species.” Systematic biology (apr). doi:10.1093/sysbio/syr029. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21482552.
———. 2011b. “Mammalian phylogeny reveals recent diversification rate shifts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011 (mar). doi:10.1073/pnas.1016876108. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1016876108.
Stamatakis, Alexandros. 2006. “RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 22 (nov): 2688–90. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16928733.
Sukumaran, Jeet, and Mark T. Holder. 2010. “DendroPy: A Python Library for Phylogenetic Computing.” Bioinformatics 26 (apr): 1569–1571. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq228. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20421198.
Warren, Dan L., Richard E. Glor, and Michael Turelli. 2008. “Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution.” Evolution 62 (nov): 2868–83. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752605.
Webb, Campbell O., David D. Ackerly, and Steven W. Kembel. 2008. “Phylocom: software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution.” Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 24 (sep): 2098–100. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn358. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18678590.
Whitlock, Michael C., Mark a McPeek, Mark D. Rausher, Loren Rieseberg, and Allen J. Moore. 2010. “Data archiving.” The American naturalist 175 (mar): 145–6. doi:10.1086/650340. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20073990.
Xie, Yihui. 2012. “knitr: A general-purpose package for dynamic report generation in R.” http://yihui.name/knitr/.