Assessing Uncertainty in the Rooting of the SARS-CoV-2 Phylogeny
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The rooting of the SARS-CoV-2 phylogeny is important for understanding the origin and early spread of the virus. Previously published phylogenies have used different rootings that do not always provide consistent results. We investigate several different strategies for rooting the SARS-CoV-2 tree and provide measures of statistical uncertainty for all methods. We show that methods based on the molecular clock tend to place the root in the B clade, whereas methods based on outgroup rooting tend to place the root in the A clade. The results from the two approaches are statistically incompatible, possibly as a consequence of deviations from a molecular clock or excess back-mutations. We also show that none of the methods provide strong statistical support for the placement of the root in any particular edge of the tree. These results suggest that phylogenetic evidence alone is unlikely to identify the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and we caution against strong inferences regarding the early spread of the virus based solely on such evidence.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.19.160630: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Than…
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.19.160630: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
-
-