An official website of the United States government
All life on earth is linked by a shared evolutionary history. Even before Darwin developed the theory of evolution, Linnaeus categorized types of organisms based on their shared traits. We now know these traits derived from these species’ shared ancestry. This evolutionary history provides a natural framework to harness the enormous quantities of biological data being generated today. The Open Tree of Life project is a collaboration developing tools to curate and share evolutionary estimates (phylogenies) covering the entire tree of life (Hinchliff et al. 2015, McTavish et al. 2017). The tree is viewable at https://tree.opentreeoflife.org, and the data is all freely available online. The taxon identifiers used in the Open Tree unified taxonomy (Rees and Cranston 2017) are mapped to identifiers across biological informatics databases, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), NCBI, and others. Linking these identifiers allows researchers to easily unify data from across these different resources (Fig. 1). Leveraging a unified evolutionary framework across the diversity of life provides new avenues for integrative wide scale research. Downstream tools, such as R packages developed by the R OpenSci foundation (rotl, rgbif) (Michonneau et al. 2016, Chamberlain 2017) and others tools (Revell 2012), make accessing and combining this information straightforward for students as well as researchers (e.g. https://mctavishlab.github.io/BIO144/labs/rotl-rgbif.html). Figure 1. Example linking phylogenetic relationships accessed from the Open Tree of Life with specimen location data from Global Biodiversity Information Facility. For example, a recent publication by Santorelli et al. 2018 linked evolutionary information from Open Tree with species locality data gathered from a local field study as well as GBIF species location records to test a river-barrier hypothesis in the Amazon. By combining these data, the authors were able test a widely held biogeographic hypothesis across 1952 species in 14 taxonomic groups, and found that a river that had been postulated to drive endemism, was in fact not a barrier to gene flow. However, data provenance and taxonomic name reconciliation remain key hurdles to applying data from these large digital biodiversity and evolution community resources to answering biological questions. In the Amazonian river analysis, while they leveraged use of GBIF records as a secondary check on their species records, they relied on their an intensive local field study for their major conclusions, and preferred taxon specific phylogenetic resources over Open Tree where they were available (Santorelli et al. 2018). When Li et al. 2018 assessed large scale phylogenetic approaches, including Open Tree, for measuring community diversity, they found that synthesis phylogenies were less resolved than purpose-built phylogenies, but also found that these synthetic phylogenies were sufficient for community level phylogenetic diversity analyses. Nonetheless, data quality concerns have limited adoption of analyses data from centralized resources (McTavish et al. 2017). Taxonomic name recognition and reconciliation across databases also remains a hurdle for large scale analyses, despite several ongoing efforts to improve taxonomic interoperability and unify taxonomies, such at Catalogue of Life + (Bánki et al. 2018). In order to support innovative science, large scale digital data resources need to facilitate data linkage between resources, and address researchers' data quality and provenance concerns. I will present the model that the Open Tree of Life is using to provide evolutionary data at the scale of the entire tree of life, while maintaining traceable provenance to the publications and taxonomies these evolutionary relationships are inferred from. I will discuss the hurdles to adoption of these large scale resources by researchers, as well as the opportunities for new research avenues provided by the connections between evolutionary inferences and biodiversity digital databases.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on July 16, 2026
Response to “No evidence that transmissible cancer has shifted from emergence to endemism in Tasmanian devils”
Abstract Herein, we rebut the critique of Patton et al. (2020), entitled, “No evidence that a transmissible cancer has shifted from emergence to endemism”, by Stammnitz et al. (2024). First and foremost, the authors do not conduct any phylogenetic or epidemiological analyses to rebut the inferences from the main results of the Patton et al. (2020) article, rendering the title of their rebuttal without evidence or merit. Additionally, Stammnitz et al. (2024) present a phylogenetic tree based on only 32 copy number variants (not typically used in phylogenetic analyses and evolve in a completely different way than DNA sequences) to “rebut” our tree that was inferred from 436.1 kb of sequence data and nearly two orders of magnitude more parsimony-informative sites (2520 SNPs). As such it is not surprising that their phylogeny did not have a similar branching pattern to ours, given that support for each branch of their tree was weak and the essentially formed a polytomy. That is, one could rotate their resulting tree in any direction and by nature, it would not match ours. While the authors are correct that we used suboptimal filtering of our raw whole genome sequencing data, re-analyses of the data with 30X coverage, as suggested, resulted in a mutation rate similar to that reported in Stammnitz et al. (2024). Most importantly, when we re-analyzed our data, as well as Stammnitz et al.’s own data, the results of the Patton et al. (2020) article are supported with both datasets. That is, the effective transmission rate of DFTD has transitioned over time to approach one, suggesting endemism; and, the spread of DFTD is rapid and omnidirectional despite the observed east-to-west wave of spread. Overall, Stammnitz et al. (2024) not only fail to provide evidence to contradict the findings of Patton et al. (2020), but rather help support the results with their own data.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2027446
- PAR ID:
- 10656719
- Publisher / Repository:
- bioRxiv
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Institution:
- Washington State University
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Infectious diseases are strong drivers of wildlife population dynamics, however, empirical analyses from the early stages of pathogen emergence are rare. Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease (DFTD), discovered in 1996, provides the opportunity to study an epizootic from its inception. We use a pattern‐oriented diffusion simulation to model the spatial spread of DFTD across the species' range and quantify population effects by jointly modelling multiple streams of data spanning 35 years. We estimate the wild devil population peaked at 53 000 in 1996, less than half of previous estimates. DFTD spread rapidly through high‐density areas, with spread velocity slowing in areas of low host densities. By 2020, DFTD occupied >90% of the species' range, causing 82% declines in local densities and reducing the total population to 16 900. Encouragingly, our model forecasts the population decline should level‐off within the next decade, supporting conservation management focused on facilitating evolution of resistance and tolerance.more » « less
-
In sports, youth are coached to see persistence and hard work as important paths to personal improvement and success. They come to understand through practice that mistakes are tools to help them improve and that collaboration and teamwork are keys to success in team sports (Kovács & Szakál, 2024; Rottensteiner et al., 2015). These ideas about the importance of effort, persistence, mistakes, and collaboration are important components of a growth mindset, the belief that ability is not fixed but can be improved through effort (Dweck & Yeager, 2020). People with a growth mindset view challenges and mistakes as opportunities to learn; they believe that success depends on effort and practice. Further, research shows that a growth mindset is associated with learner persistence and has positive effects on learning in school and beyond, including in sports (Biddle et al., 1996; Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck 2006). However, young people who have a growth mindset in sports may not extend it to subjects such as mathematics and science (Chan et al., 2022; Kyler & Moscicki, 2024). In this paper, we describe a strategy of combining growth mindset principles, mathematics concepts, and sports examples to support students in shifting their mindsets about their own abilities. We share outcomes from implementing these activities at five out-of-school settings.more » « less
-
This article presents tactile drafting techniques developed in collaboration with blind educators and students that have the potential to increase BLV students’ access to drafting and engineering graphic curriculum in K-12 and higher education. This work builds on previous work funded by the National Science Foundation (Goodridge et al., 2019; Ashby et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2020; Goodridge et al., 2021a; Goodridge et al., 2021b) and it is the authors’ hope that some of the practices included herein will allow BLV youth to further develop technological and engineering literacy in related technology and engineering graphics courses.more » « less
-
Towards Haudenosaunee research sovereignty: Investing in local research and training to support community developmentThe article emphasizes the importance of Indigenous Research Governance in Six Nations of the Grand River, addressing the harmful historical effects of academic research on Indigenous Peoples and advocating for structural changes that promote Indigenous data sovereignty and community ownership of research. In both Canada and the United States, academic research has long been part of the colonial project (Hodge, 2012; Williams et al., 2020). The impact research has had on Indigenous Peoples has resulted in a legacy of deep mistrust and negative perception of research by many Indigenous communities (Garrison et al., 2023). Indigenous scholars and leaders who have advocated for repairing this relationship have led major transformations away from the way in which research has traditionally been approached and administered. Most recent paradigm and policy shifts seek to support the establishment of self-determined Indigenous Research Governance (Garba et al., 2023; Morton et al., 2017), which encapsulates many interconnected key concepts, including Indigenous data sovereignty (Schnarch, 2004; Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Cannon et al., 2024), Indigenous research ethics (Castellano, 2004; Kuhn et al., 2020; Fournier et al., 2023), Indigenous/ decolonizing methodologies (Kovach, 2009; Smith, 2021), and Indigenous epistemologies (McGregor et al., 2010; Karanja, 2019).more » « less
