Bishop, D. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2021

A Comprehensive Phylogenomic Platform for Exploring the Angiosperm Tree of Life

The tree of life is the fundamental biological roadmap for navigating the evolution and properties of life on Earth, and yet remains largely unknown. Even angiosperms (flowering plants) are fraught with data gaps, despite their critical role in sustaining terrestrial life. Today, high-throughput sequencing promises to significantly deepen our understanding of evolutionary relationships. Here, we describe a comprehensive phylogenomic platform for exploring the angiosperm tree of life, comprising a set of open tools and data based on the 353 nuclear genes targeted by the universal Angiosperms353 sequence capture probes. This paper (i) documents our methods, (ii) describes our first data release and (iii) presents a novel open data portal, the Kew Tree of Life Explorer (https://treeoflife.kew.org). We aim to generate novel target sequence capture data for all genera of flowering plants, exploiting natural history collections such as herbarium specimens, and augment it with mined public data. Our first data release, described here, is the most extensive nuclear phylogenomic dataset for angiosperms to date, comprising 3,099 samples validated by DNA barcode and phylogenetic tests, representing all 64 orders, 404 families (96%) and 2,333 genera (17%). Using the multi-species coalescent, we inferred a "first pass" angiosperm tree of life from the data, which totalled 824,878 sequences, 489,086,049 base pairs, and 532,260 alignment columns. The tree is strongly supported and highly congruent with existing taxonomy, while challenging numerous hypothesized relationships among orders and placing many genera for the first time. The validated dataset, species tree and all intermediates are openly accessible via the Kew Tree of Life Explorer. This major milestone towards a complete tree of life for all flowering plant species opens doors to a highly integrated future for angiosperm phylogenomics through the systematic sequencing of standardised nuclear markers. Our approach has the potential to serve as a much-needed bridge between the growing movement to sequence the genomes of all life on Earth and the vast phylogenomic potential of the worlds natural history collections.

evolutionary biology↗

bioRxiv2021

'Nepotistic journals: a survey of biomedical journals.

ContextConvergent analyses in different disciplines support the use of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) as a red flag to identify journals that can be suspected of questionable editorial practices. We examined whether this index, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using a large sample of biomedical journals. MethodsWe extracted metadata for all biomedical journals referenced in the National Library of Medicine, with any attributed Broad Subject Terms, and at least 50 authored (i.e. by at least one author) articles between 2015 and 2019, identifying the most prolific author (i.e. the person who signed the most papers in each particular journal). We calculated the PPMP and the 2015-2019 Gini index for the distribution of articles across authors. When the relevant information was reported, we also computed the median publication lag (time between submission and acceptance) for articles authored by any of the most prolific authors and that for articles not authored by prolific authors. For outlier journals, defined as a PPMP or Gini index above the 95th percentile of their respective distributions, a random sample of 100 journals was selected and described in relation to status on the editorial board for the most prolific author. Results5 468 journals that published 4 986 335 papers between 2015 and 2019 were analysed. The PPMP 95th percentile was 10.6% (median 2.9%). The Gini index 95th percentile was 0.355 (median 0.183). Correlation between the two indices was 0.35 (95CI 0.33 to 0.37). Information on publication lag was available for 2 743 journals. We found that 277 journals (10.2%) had a median time lag to publication for articles by the most prolific author(s) that was shorter than 3 weeks, versus 51 (1.9%) journals with articles not authored by prolific author(s). Among the random sample of outlier journals, 98 provided information about their editorial board. Among these 98, the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%), among whom 25 (26% of the 98) were editors-in-chief. DiscussionIn most journals publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. The papers by these authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

scientific communication and education↗