DateLife: Leveraging Databases and Analytical Tools to Reveal the Dated Tree of Life

Abstract

Abstract Chronograms—phylogenies with branch lengths proportional to time—represent key data on timing of evolutionary events, allowing us to study natural processes in many areas of biological research. Chronograms also provide valuable information that can be used for education, science communication, and conservation policy decisions. Yet, achieving a high-quality reconstruction of a chronogram is a difficult and resource-consuming task. Here we present DateLife, a phylogenetic software implemented as an R package and an R Shiny web application available at www.datelife.org, that provides services for efficient and easy discovery, summary, reuse, and reanalysis of node age data mined from a curated database of expert, peer-reviewed, and openly available chronograms. The main DateLife workflow starts with one or more scientific taxon names provided by a user. Names are processed and standardized to a unified taxonomy, allowing DateLife to run a name match across its local chronogram database that is curated from Open Tree of Life’s phylogenetic repository, and extract all chronograms that contain at least two queried taxon names, along with their metadata. Finally, node ages from matching chronograms are mapped using the congruification algorithm to corresponding nodes on a tree topology, either extracted from Open Tree of Life’s synthetic phylogeny or one provided by the user. Congruified node ages are used as secondary calibrations to date the chosen topology, with or without initial branch lengths, using different phylogenetic dating methods such as BLADJ, treePL, PATHd8, and MrBayes. We performed a cross-validation test to compare node ages resulting from a DateLife analysis (i.e, phylogenetic dating using secondary calibrations) to those from the original chronograms (i.e, obtained with primary calibrations), and found that DateLife’s node age estimates are consistent with the age estimates from the original chronograms, with the largest variation in ages occurring around topologically deeper nodes. Because the results from any software for scientific analysis can only be as good as the data used as input, we highlight the importance of considering the results of a DateLife analysis in the context of the input chronograms. DateLife can help to increase awareness of the existing disparities among alternative hypotheses of dates for the same diversification events, and to support exploration of the effect of alternative chronogram hypotheses on downstream analyses, providing a framework for a more informed interpretation of evolutionary results.