Molecular Chronometers: The Genomic Clockwork Driving Prokaryotic Phylogeny and Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of molecular chronometers, the genetic markers used to reconstruct evolutionary timelines for prokaryotes. Tailored for researchers and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational principles of these phylogenetic tools, from the established 16S rRNA to novel protein-based clocks. It details cutting-edge methodological applications, including genome-based classification and fast molecular dating algorithms, while addressing key challenges in calibration and rate variation. The article further validates different chronometers through comparative analysis, highlighting their critical role in defining taxonomic frameworks, tracking genetic resources, and informing the discovery of novel biomolecules with clinical relevance.

The Evolutionary Clockwork: Principles and Markers for Prokaryotic Phylogeny

Molecular chronometers, the biomolecules used to deduce evolutionary time, are foundational to modern phylogenetic research. The concept, first articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling in the early 1960s, proposed that the accumulation of molecular changes in proteins over time could serve as a clock for dating species divergence [1] [2]. This hypothesis, later supported by Motoo Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution, has undergone significant refinement, transitioning from the analysis of single proteins to genome-scale datasets and sophisticated Bayesian relaxed-clock models [3] [4]. This whitepaper traces the evolution of molecular chronometer theory and practice, with a specific focus on its critical role in advancing prokaryotic taxonomy and classification. We detail standard methodologies, present key quantitative data, and visualize core workflows to provide a comprehensive technical resource for researchers in evolutionary biology and microbial systematics.

The term molecular clock figuratively describes a technique that uses the constant rate of mutation in biomolecules to deduce the time in prehistory when two or more life forms diverged [1]. The fundamental principle is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since they last shared a common ancestor [3]. This concept was born from the empirical observations of Émile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, who, in 1962, noted that the number of amino acid differences in hemoglobin between different lineages changed roughly linearly with time, as estimated from fossil evidence [1]. The phenomenon of genetic equidistance, notably documented by Emanuel Margoliash in 1963 using cytochrome c, provided further early support, showing that the number of residue differences was conditioned primarily by the time elapsed since evolutionary divergence [1].

The subsequent development of the neutral theory of molecular evolution by Motoo Kimura provided a theoretical foundation for the clock. Kimura proposed that the majority of molecular changes are due to the fixation of neutral mutations, with the rate of substitution equal to the rate of mutation [1] [2]. This neutral molecular clock posits that the rate of molecular evolution is determined by the mutation rate and is therefore predictable and constant over time [2]. For prokaryotic research, where the fossil record is exceptionally sparse, the molecular clock has become an indispensable tool for inferring the timeline of evolutionary events [5] [6].

Theoretical Foundations and Key Concepts

The Neutral Theory and the Molecular Clock

The neutral theory provides a mathematical basis for the molecular clock. In a haploid population of size N, if neutral mutations occur at a rate μ per individual per generation, the total number of new mutations in each generation is Nμ. The probability that any single new neutral mutation will eventually become fixed in the population is 1/N. Therefore, the rate of substitution, or the rate at which new mutations become fixed, is the product of the number of new mutations and their probability of fixation (Nμ × 1/N), which equals μ [2]. This simple yet powerful result means that for neutral mutations, the substitution rate is equal to the mutation rate, leading to a constant, clock-like accumulation of changes over time, provided the mutation rate is stable [2].

Challenges to the Clock-like Assumption

Despite its foundational role, the assumption of a strictly constant rate has been widely challenged. It is now "abundantly clear that substitutions do not occur constantly over time in different lineages" [2]. Several factors can cause rate variation, including:

• Generation-time effect: In organisms with shorter generation times, DNA replication occurs more frequently per unit of absolute time, potentially leading to a faster accumulation of mutations [2].
• Population size: Genetic drift is stronger in small populations, allowing more nearly neutral mutations to become fixed, which can accelerate the observed evolutionary rate [1] [5].
• Metabolic rate and DNA repair efficiency: Lineage-specific differences in biology can influence mutation rates [1] [3].
• Changes in the intensity of natural selection: Shifts in functional constraints or adaptive episodes can alter substitution rates [1] [7].

These violations have led to the development of "relaxed" molecular clock models that permit the evolutionary rate to vary among lineages, albeit in a constrained manner [3] [4].

Evolution of Molecular Chronometers in Prokaryotic Classification

The choice of molecular chronometer has evolved with technological advancements, significantly impacting prokaryotic taxonomy.

Table 1: Evolution of Molecular Chronometers in Prokaryotic Taxonomy

Era	Primary Chronometer	Basis of Classification	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Pre-1960s	Phenotypic characteristics	Morphology, biochemistry, physiology [6]	Practical for identification; intuitive	Does not reflect deep evolutionary relationships [6]
1970s-2000s	16S rRNA gene	Phylogenetic inference [6]	Universal; slow-evolving; extensive database	Limited resolution for recently diverged species; single gene [8] [6]
2000s-Present	Multi-locus sequence analysis (MLSA)	Phylogenetic inference of several core genes [8]	Better resolution than 16S rRNA	Still a small fraction of the genome
Genomics Era	Whole-genome sequences (Core genome)	Supertrees, supermatrices, Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) [6]	Maximum resolution; robust phylogenetic framework	Computationally intensive; requires genome sequencing

The journey began with phenotypic classification, which was practical but failed to reveal true evolutionary relationships [6]. The paradigm shifted with the work of Woese, who adopted the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene as a universal molecular chronometer [6]. This gene's combination of highly conserved regions (for deep relationships) and variable regions (for recent divergences) made it ideal for building the first comprehensive phylogenetic framework for bacteria and archaea, even leading to the discovery of the Archaea domain [6].

In recent decades, the field has transitioned to genome-based classification. While 16S rRNA is still a valuable first step, genome sequences provide a much larger fraction of the genome for comparison, offering superior resolution for both ancient and recent relationships [6]. Methods now include building phylogenies from concatenated sequences of core genes (supermatrices) or combining individual gene trees (supertrees), as well as using genome-wide similarity measures like Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) for species delineation [6]. This is particularly powerful for incorporating metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from uncultured prokaryotes into the taxonomic framework [6].

Essential Methodologies and Protocols

Calibrating the Molecular Clock

A molecular clock must be calibrated using independent evidence about divergence times, as molecular data alone does not contain absolute time information [1] [3]. The two primary calibration methods for species divergence are node calibration and tip calibration.

Table 2: Methods for Calibrating the Molecular Clock

Method	Description	Key Considerations
Node Calibration	Fossil evidence is used to constrain the minimum age of a node (clade) in the phylogeny [1].	The oldest fossil of a clade provides a minimum age; the clade is likely older. Strategies are needed to model the maximum bound or use a probability density to express uncertainty [1].
Tip Calibration	Fossils are treated as taxa and placed on the tips of the tree based on morphological data analyzed alongside molecular data from extant taxa [1].	Uses all relevant fossils, not just the oldest. Does not rely on negative evidence for maximum clade ages. Implemented in "total-evidence dating" [1].

For prokaryotes, direct fossil calibration is rarely possible. Alternative strategies include:

• Host-symbiont calibration: Using the fossil record of a eukaryotic host to date the divergence of its obligate bacterial endosymbionts, given phylogenetic concordance [5].
• Geological events: Correlating divergence with events like the formation of islands or mountain ranges [3].

Testing Rate Constancy and Relaxed Clock Models

A fundamental step is testing the assumption of a constant rate. The relative rate test allows this without absolute divergence times by using an outgroup. If the rate of evolution is equal in two sister lineages, their genetic distances to a more distantly related outgroup should be equal [1] [2].

When rate variation is detected, relaxed molecular clock models are employed. These models, implemented in Bayesian software like BEAST, allow the molecular rate to vary across lineages according to a specified distribution (e.g., uncorrelated lognormal or exponential) [1] [4]. Bayesian methods integrate over uncertainty in tree topology, substitution models, and calibration times to provide posterior distributions of divergence times [4].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for a modern molecular clock dating analysis, highlighting the decision points between strict and relaxed clocks.

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Molecular Chronometer Research

Reagent/Tool	Function/Description	Example Application
Universal PCR Primers (16S rRNA)	Amplify 16S rRNA gene directly from environmental DNA or isolates [6].	Initial profiling and phylogenetic placement of uncultured prokaryotes [6].
Löwenstein-Jensen Medium	Solid egg-based medium for culturing Mycobacterium species [8].	Isolation of mycobacterial clinical isolates for subsequent phylogenetic study [8].
Nucleotide Sequence Databases (e.g., GenBank)	Public repositories for DNA and protein sequences.	Source of homologous sequences for comparative analysis and phylogenetic tree construction [8].
Phylogenetic Software (e.g., MEGA X, BEAST)	Software packages for multiple sequence alignment, phylogenetic inference, and molecular clock dating [8] [4].	MEGA X for neighbor-joining trees and relative rate tests; BEAST for Bayesian relaxed clock dating [8] [4].
Core Gene Sets	A curated set of single-copy, universally conserved genes for a taxonomic group.	Constructing robust genome-scale phylogenies for supermatrix or supertree analysis [6].

Quantitative Data on Molecular Evolutionary Rates

Rates of molecular evolution are highly variable across genes, sites, and taxa, which is a critical consideration for selecting an appropriate chronometer.

Table 4: Documented Rates of Molecular Evolution Across Taxa and Genes

Gene/Region	Taxonomic Group	Evolutionary Rate	Notes
16S rRNA	Buchnera (aphid endosymbiont)	0.06% per million years (avg) [5]	Calibrated using host fossil record. Shows rate can vary 4-fold across endosymbiont lineages [5].
16S rRNA	Free-living vs. Obligate Bacteria	Higher in obligate pathogens/symbionts [5]	Supports role of genetic drift due to smaller effective population size (Ne) in obligate associates.
Cytochrome b	Birds	~1% per million years per lineage (2% total divergence) [3]	The "2% rule"; but rates can vary over four-fold among bird species [3].
Synonymous Sites (Ks)	Free-living Bacteria	Ks is ~25x higher than Ka (nonsynonymous rate) [5]	Reflects strong purifying selection on protein sequence.
Synonymous Sites (Ks)	Obligate Bacterial Symbionts	Ks is ~10x higher than Ka [5]	Relaxed purifying selection due to smaller Ne increases Ka.
rRNA	Across bacteria, mammals, invertebrates, plants	0.7–0.8% per Myr [1]	For sites under low levels of negative selection.

Advanced Concepts and Current Research Frontiers

Molecular Clocks Beyond Sequence: Protein Structures and Episodic Evolution

Research has extended the molecular clock concept to protein structure evolution. A 2019 study found that violations of the molecular clock can be larger and more significant in protein structure evolution than in sequence evolution. Changes in protein function were associated with significant clock violations in structure, suggesting that natural selection constrains structures more strongly than sequences [7].

Another frontier is the detection of episodic evolution, where a lineage undergoes a temporary burst of accelerated evolution. Novel Bayesian methods are now available to detect such episodes by quantifying the support for evolutionary rate increases on specific branches of a phylogeny, as demonstrated in analyses of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern [9].

Molecular Decay Dating for Organic Materials

A related but distinct application of molecular clocks is molecular decay (MD) dating for archaeological organic findings like wood, paper, and parchment. This method uses time-dependent chemical changes in materials, such as those measured by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, and models the decay using machine learning techniques like random forests or partial least squares regression [10]. Unlike the evolutionary molecular clock, MD dating is highly influenced by environmental preservation conditions [10].

The concept of the molecular chronometer has proven to be one of the most transformative ideas in evolutionary biology. From its origins in the observations of Zuckerkandl and Pauling, it has matured into a sophisticated statistical framework that accommodates rate variation and integrates information from fossils, geology, and genomics. For prokaryotic taxonomy, the shift from 16S rRNA to genome-based chronometers has enabled the construction of a comprehensive and robust phylogenetic framework that systematically incorporates the vast diversity of uncultured microorganisms. Future progress will depend on the continued refinement of relaxed clock models, the development of new methods to detect episodic evolution, and the scalable application of these techniques to the ever-growing universe of genomic and metagenomic data.

The 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) gene has served as the cornerstone of prokaryotic phylogenetics and taxonomy for decades, functioning as a reliable molecular chronometer that enables researchers to decipher evolutionary relationships among bacteria and archaea [11]. Its enduring utility stems from a unique combination of properties: universal distribution across prokaryotes, functional constancy, and a genetic architecture featuring interspersed conserved and variable regions [12]. This guide provides an in-depth technical examination of the 16S rRNA gene, detailing the molecular principles underpinning its function as a phylogenetic marker, standardized protocols for its sequencing and analysis, and an overview of its applications and limitations in modern microbial research. The content is framed within a broader scientific inquiry into optimal molecular chronometers for prokaryotic classification.

The classification of life forms into a hierarchical system (taxonomy) and the application of names to this hierarchy (nomenclature) is at a turning point in microbiology [6]. The historical method for identifying bacteria relied on comparing morphological and phenotypic descriptions of isolates against typical strains [11]. This approach was often subjective, with identifications varying among laboratories due to the lack of a robust, objective framework [11]. The seminal work of Woese and others in the late 20th century introduced a paradigm shift by demonstrating that phylogenetic relationships of all life-forms could be determined by comparing a stable part of the genetic code [11] [6]. They landed upon the ribosome as a candidate, most famously the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA for prokaryotes), due to its high sequence conservation and the presence of variable regions not under the same exacting selective pressure [6]. This combination of properties makes 16S rRNA a molecular clock with both an "hour and minute hand" to measure ancient and more recent evolutionary relationships [6].

Table 1: Core Properties of the 16S rRNA Gene as a Molecular Chronometer

Property	Molecular Basis	Phylogenetic Utility
Ubiquitous Distribution	Essential component of the 30S ribosomal subunit in all prokaryotes [12].	Allows for universal comparison across all bacterial and archaeal lineages [11].
Functional Constancy	Critical role in protein synthesis, imposing strong selective pressure against change [11] [13].	Ensures the gene is a valid molecular chronometer for assessing phylogenetic relatedness [14].
Variable & Conserved Regions	The ~1,550 bp gene contains nine hypervariable regions (V1-V9) flanked by conserved sequences [12].	Conserved regions enable universal PCR priming; variable regions provide phylogenetic signal for differentiation [11] [15].
Appropriate Length	The gene is sufficiently long (~1,500 bp) to contain statistically valid information [11].	Provides enough sequence data for robust phylogenetic analysis without being unwieldy for sequencing [12].
Multiple Copy Number	Most bacteria possess 5-10 copies of the 16S rRNA gene in their genome [12].	Enhances detection sensitivity in molecular assays [12].

The 16S rRNA Gene: Structure and Function

Molecular Architecture and Phylogenetic Signal

The 16S rRNA gene is approximately 1,550 base pairs in length and is composed of a series of variable regions (V1-V9) interspersed with highly conserved sequences [12]. These variable regions evolve at different rates, creating a mosaic of evolutionary information. The conserved regions, critical for the ribosome's fundamental function, allow for the design of "universal" PCR primers that can amplify the gene from a vast range of prokaryotes [15] [16]. Conversely, the variable regions accumulate mutations over time, and the degree of sequence divergence in these areas provides the signal for inferring phylogenetic relationships [11]. It is important to note that the functional constancy of the 16S rRNA gene does not imply absolute sequence rigidity. Comparative RNA function analyses have revealed that even distantly related 16S rRNAs (e.g., from E. coli and Acidobacteria, with 78% identity) can be highly functionally similar, with a vast majority of nucleotide differences being functionally neutral in a common genetic background [13].

Role in the Ribosome and Cell

As a component of the 30S small subunit of the prokaryotic ribosome, the 16S rRNA molecule is not a passive scaffold but a catalytic player in protein synthesis. Its functions include [12]:

• Scaffolding: Providing binding sites for ribosomal proteins.
• mRNA Binding: The 3' end contains an anti-Shine-Dalgarno sequence that binds to the initiation codon of mRNA, crucial for starting protein synthesis.
• Subunit Integration: Interacting with the 23S rRNA of the large ribosomal subunit (50S) to facilitate the integration of the two ribosome units.

This critical, multi-faceted role in an essential cellular process places the 16S rRNA molecule under intense purifying selection. This selective pressure preserves its core structure and function across billions of years of evolution, making it an ideal reference point for measuring deep evolutionary time [11].

Experimental Methodology: From Sample to Sequence

The standard workflow for 16S rRNA gene analysis has been optimized for high-throughput sequencing and relies on a series of carefully controlled steps to ensure accurate and reproducible results [17] [18].

Diagram 1: 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing and Analysis Workflow

Detailed Wet-Lab Protocol

• Genomic DNA Extraction: Extract total genomic DNA from clinical or environmental samples using either conventional protocols (e.g., phenol-chloroform) or commercial kits (e.g., QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit). The extracted DNA is then quantified using spectrophotometric (e.g., Nanodrop) or fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) to determine quantity and quality [17] [18]. The use of automated nucleic acid extraction machines (e.g., QIAcube, KingFisher) is recommended for high-throughput laboratories to ensure consistency and walk-away operation [17].

• PCR Amplification of Target Region: Amplify the desired hypervariable region(s) of the 16S rRNA gene using broad-specificity "universal" primers. Common targets include the V3-V4 region (~428 bp) for Illumina MiSeq or the V4 region (~252 bp) for Illumina HiSeq [12] [15]. The PCR reaction typically includes:

  • Template DNA: 1-10 ng of quantified genomic DNA.
  • Primers: Forward and reverse primers with overhang adapters compatible with the sequencing platform.
  • PCR Master Mix: Contains heat-stable DNA polymerase, dNTPs, and buffer.
  • Cycling Conditions: Initial denaturation (95°C for 3 min), followed by 25-35 cycles of denaturation (95°C for 30 s), annealing (55°C for 30 s), and extension (72°C for 30 s), with a final extension (72°C for 5 min) [18].

• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Purify the PCR amplicons to remove primers, dNTPs, and enzymes. Following purification, attach dual indices and sequencing adapters via a limited-cycle PCR. Quantify and normalize the final libraries, then pool them in equimolar ratios for multiplexed sequencing on a platform such as the Illumina MiSeq or HiSeq [17] [18].

Bioinformatic Analysis Pipeline

The raw sequencing data (FastQ files) are processed using specialized bioinformatics pipelines such as QIIME2 [18].

• Demultiplexing and Quality Control: Assign sequences to their respective samples based on the barcodes (demultiplexing) and assess sequence quality.

• Denoising and Chimera Removal: Process the sequences using algorithms like DADA2 or Deblur to correct sequencing errors and remove chimeric sequences, which are spurious artifacts formed during PCR. This results in a table of Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs), which are single-DNA-sequence variants that differ by as little as one nucleotide, providing higher resolution than traditional Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) [18].

• Taxonomic Assignment: Assign taxonomy to each ASV by comparing it against a curated reference database (e.g., SILVA, Greengenes, RDP) using a naive Bayesian classifier [15] [18]. The output is a feature table containing the counts of each ASV in every sample.

• Diversity and Statistical Analysis:

  • Alpha Diversity: Analyze within-sample diversity using metrics like the Shannon index, which considers both the number of species (richness) and their relative abundance (evenness) [18].
  • Beta Diversity: Analyze between-sample differences using metrics like Bray-Curtis dissimilarity or UniFrac distance. Results are often visualized using ordination methods such as Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) [15] [18].
  • Differential Abundance Testing: Identify ASVs that are statistically significantly different between sample groups using tools like the Linear Decomposition Model (LDM), which controls for multiple testing and covariates [18].

Table 2: Common 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Regions by Platform

Sequencing Platform	Commonly Targeted Regions	Approximate Amplicon Length
Illumina MiSeq	V3-V4	~428 bp [12]
Roche 454 (Discontinued)	V1-V3, V3-V5, V6-V9	~510 bp, ~428 bp, ~548 bp [12]
Illumina HiSeq	V4	~252 bp [12]
Pacific Bioscience (PacBio)	V1-V9 (Full-length)	~1,500 bp [12]

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing

Item Category	Specific Examples	Function in Experimental Workflow
DNA Extraction Kits	QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit (Qiagen), DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Qiagen)	Efficient lysis of diverse microbial cells and purification of inhibitor-free genomic DNA from complex samples [17] [18].
"Universal" Primer Sets	341F/806R (targeting V3-V4), 515F/806R (targeting V4)	PCR amplification of the target 16S rRNA hypervariable region from a wide range of prokaryotes [15] [18].
PCR Enzyme Master Mix	GoTaq G2 Hot Start Master Mix (Promega), KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix (Roche)	Robust and high-fidelity amplification of 16S amplicons, minimizing PCR errors and bias [18].
Library Prep Kits	Nextera XT DNA Library Prep Kit (Illumina)	Attachment of platform-specific adapters and sample-specific barcodes (indexes) for multiplexed sequencing [17].
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina MiSeq/HiSeq, Ion Torrent Genexus System	High-throughput parallel sequencing of millions of 16S amplicons [17].
Bioinformatics Software	QIIME2, mothur, DADA2, USEARCH	Processing raw sequence data, including denoising, chimera removal, OTU/ASV clustering, and taxonomic assignment [15] [18].
Reference Databases	SILVA, Greengenes, Ribosomal Database Project (RDP)	Curated collections of high-quality 16S rRNA sequences used for accurate taxonomic classification of query sequences [12] [15].

Applications and Comparative Advantages

The 16S rRNA gene sequence has had a profound impact on clinical microbiology and microbial ecology. Its applications include [11] [12]:

• Identification of Pathogens: It can more accurately identify poorly described, rarely isolated, or phenotypically aberrant strains than traditional phenotypic methods. It is routinely used for identifying mycobacteria and has led to the recognition of novel pathogens and noncultured bacteria [11] [14].
• Microbiome Profiling: As a rapid, high-throughput, and culture-free technique, it provides an essential toolset for understanding the structure, diversity, and dynamic alterations within microbial communities (e.g., human gut, oral, and environmental microbiomes) [12] [15].
• Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Studies: It forms the backbone of modern prokaryotic taxonomy, allowing for the construction of phylogenetic trees that reflect evolutionary relationships, as evidenced by its adoption in the second edition of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology [6].

The comparative advantages of 16S rRNA gene sequencing are significant. It provides a culture-independent method to study microbes, including the vast majority that cannot be easily cultivated in the laboratory [17] [12]. It is also cost-effective compared to shotgun metagenomic sequencing, making it suitable for large-scale cohort studies where analyzing hundreds or thousands of samples is necessary [16].

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its utility, 16S rRNA gene sequencing has several important limitations that researchers must consider.

• Limited Taxonomic Resolution: The 16S rRNA gene often cannot reliably distinguish between closely related species or different strains of the same species. Some distinct species share nearly identical 16S sequences, while some strains of the same species may have microheterogeneity [11] [14] [19]. This is a critical limitation as strains can differ dramatically in pathogenic potential or metabolic capabilities [19].
• Inability to Directly Assess Function: The technique provides information on "who is there" but not "what they are doing." Predicting functional profiles from 16S data requires inference algorithms (e.g., PICRUSt2, Tax4Fun2), which are limited by reference databases and can lack the sensitivity to delineate subtle, health-related functional changes [16].
• Technical Biases: The variable copy number of the 16S rRNA gene in different bacterial genomes (from 1 to over 15 copies) can confound abundance estimates, as a species with more copies will be overrepresented in the sequencing data [16] [19]. Additionally, choices in DNA extraction method, primer selection, and sequencing platform can introduce biases that affect the observed microbial community composition [16].

The future of microbial classification is increasingly leaning towards genome-based taxonomy, which uses a much larger fraction of the genome (e.g., hundreds of conserved genes) to construct a more robust phylogenetic framework with greater resolution at both deep and shallow taxonomic levels [6]. However, the 16S rRNA gene will remain a valuable tool for rapid identification, initial community profiling, and as a scalable first pass in large-scale ecological studies. The challenge remains to translate the genotypic accuracy of 16S rRNA gene sequencing into convenient and accessible testing schemes for routine laboratories, ensuring its benefits are widely available [11].

The use of 16S rRNA gene as a molecular chronometer has been a cornerstone of prokaryotic systematics for decades. However, its limitations in resolution, particularly at the genus and species levels, are increasingly apparent. This whitepaper explores the emerging paradigm of protein-based molecular clocks as powerful alternatives for phylogenetic classification and evolutionary timing in bacteria and archaea. We present recent advances in the identification and application of novel protein chronometers, detailed methodological frameworks for their implementation, and their transformative potential for research and drug development. By moving beyond 16S rRNA, the scientific community can achieve unprecedented resolution in reconstructing the evolutionary history of prokaryotic life.

Molecular chronometers are essential tools for reconstructing evolutionary timelines and classifying organisms. While 16S rRNA sequencing has served as the gold standard in prokaryotic phylogenetics, significant limitations hinder its effectiveness for fine-scale taxonomic resolution and recent evolutionary events. The conserved nature of the 16S rRNA gene often provides insufficient phylogenetic signal to distinguish between closely related species, and its presence in multiple copy numbers within genomes can introduce analytical complications [20].

The emergence of genome-scale data has catalyzed a shift toward protein-based markers, which offer several advantages:

• Higher resolution: Proteins accumulate substitutions more rapidly than rRNA genes, providing greater discriminatory power at finer taxonomic levels.
• Functional insights: Protein sequences directly reflect functional constraints and adaptations.
• Horizontal gene transfer tracking: Proteins can reveal complex evolutionary histories involving gene transfer events.

This whitepaper examines the current landscape of novel protein clocks, with particular focus on circadian clock proteins in bacteria and enzymes with well-preserved evolutionary histories, establishing their utility as molecular chronometers for advanced phylogenetic research.

Case Studies of Novel Protein Clocks

The Kai Protein Circadian Clock in Cyanobacteria

The self-sustaining circadian oscillator composed of KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC proteins in cyanobacteria represents a sophisticated timing mechanism with exceptional phylogenetic utility. Recent research has traced the evolutionary origins of this system, revealing its development over geological timescales [21] [22].

Table 1: Evolutionary Timeline of Kai Protein Circadian Oscillators

Geological Time	Evolutionary Event	Kai Protein Development
~3.8-3.5 Ga ago	Predecessor of kaiC gene duplication and fusion	Emergence of double-domain KaiC predecessor [21]
~3.0 Ga ago	Emergence of MRCA* of cyanobacteria	Primitive oxygenic photosynthetic systems [22]
~2.3 Ga ago	Great Oxidation Event (GOE)	Acquisition of essential rhythmicity factors [21] [22]
~2.2 Ga ago	Post-GOE period	Emergence of earliest functional Kai-protein oscillator in MRCA of cyanobacteria [21]
~0.7 Ga ago	Snowball Earth Events	Further refinement of oscillator capabilities [22]
Present	Current ecosystems	Inheritance by most freshwater and marine cyanobacteria [21]

*MRCA: Most Recent Common Ancestor

The evolutionary trajectory of Kai proteins demonstrates their potential as molecular chronometers dating back billions of years. Functional analyses of reconstructed ancestral Kai proteins reveal that the oldest double-domain KaiC lacked essential structural elements for rhythmicity, which were acquired through molecular evolution around major Earth oxidation events [21]. This evolutionary journey establishes Kai proteins as reliable markers for dating major transitions in cyanobacterial evolution.

Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) in Bacterial and Archaeal Evolution

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), once considered primarily eukaryotic enzymes, have emerged as valuable markers for understanding early animal and microbial coevolution. These enzymes show extensive diversity in Bacteria, Eumetazoa, and Streptophyta, with phylogenetic analyses revealing a history of rapid diversification and multiple interkingdom horizontal gene transfers (HGT) [23].

The abundance of microbial MMPs in marine metagenomes strongly correlates with chitinase abundance, suggesting association with animal-derived substrates. This relationship provides a temporal framework for dating evolutionary events, as the transfer of MMP genes to the ancestral lineage of the archaeal family Methanosarcinaceae constrains this group to postdate the evolution of collagen and therefore animal diversification [23]. This establishes MMPs as valuable chronological markers for constraining molecular clock estimates across the Tree of Life.

Table 2: Protein Markers for Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

Protein Marker	Organismic Range	Phylogenetic Resolution	Key Applications
KaiABC complex	Cyanobacteria	Order to strain level	Dating origin of oxygenic photosynthesis, evolutionary adaptation to light-dark cycles [21] [22]
Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs)	Bacteria, Archaea, Eumetazoa	Domain to family level	Tracing animal-microbe coevolution, horizontal gene transfer events [23]
Average Amino Acid Identity (AAI)	Across prokaryotic taxa	Genus to species level	Genome-based taxonomic classification and genus delineation [20]

Methodological Framework for Protein Clock Implementation

Genome-Based Taxonomic Analysis

The implementation of protein clocks requires a shift from gene-centric to genome-based approaches. The comprehensive taxogenomic framework represents the current state-of-the-art, utilizing multiple genomic indices to achieve high taxonomic resolution [20].

Experimental Protocol: Genome-Based Taxonomic Delineation

• Genome Sequencing and Assembly

  • Extract genomic DNA using standardized kits (e.g., LaboPass bacterial genomic DNA isolation kit)
  • Perform whole-genome sequencing using Illumina or PacBio platforms
  • Assemble genomes using appropriate algorithms (e.g., SPAdes, Canu)

• Calculation of Genomic Indices

  • Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI): Calculate using OrthoANI or FastANI algorithms
  • Digital DNA-DNA Hybridization (dDDH): Compute using Genome-to-Genome Distance Calculator (GGDC)
  • Average Amino Acid Identity (AAI): Determine through BLASTP comparisons of all predicted protein sequences

• Genus Delineation Thresholds

  • Establish genus-level AAI thresholds through repetitive clustering (e.g., 74.07% to 75.11% for Colwelliaceae [20])
  • Apply unified criteria across taxonomic groups for consistent classification

• Phylogenetic Reconstruction

  • Identify orthologous protein sequences across taxa
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using MAFFT or Clustal Omega
  • Construct phylogenetic trees using maximum likelihood (RAxML) or Bayesian (MrBayes) methods

Figure 1: Workflow for Protein Clock Development and Implementation

In Vitro Reconstruction of Ancient Protein Clocks

The functional analysis of ancestral protein reconstructions provides unprecedented insights into evolutionary chronology. This approach has been successfully applied to Kai proteins to determine the origin of circadian rhythms in cyanobacteria [21].

Experimental Protocol: Ancestral Protein Reconstruction and Analysis

• Sequence Collection and Alignment

  • Collect KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC homologs from diverse extant cyanobacteria
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using iterative methods

• Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

  • Apply maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods to infer ancestral sequences
  • Model molecular evolution using appropriate substitution models
  • Reconstruct sequences for key evolutionary nodes (e.g., α–η in cyanobacterial evolution [21])

• Protein Synthesis and Purification

  • Synthesize genes encoding ancestral proteins with codon optimization for expression hosts
  • Express proteins in E. coli expression systems
  • Purify using affinity chromatography (e.g., His-tag purification)

• In Vitro Oscillation Assays

  • Establish reaction mixtures containing ancestral KaiC, KaiA, KaiB, and ATP
  • Conduct phosphorylation assays at constant temperature (30°C) and pH (8.0)
  • Monitor phosphorylation rhythms using SDS-PAGE or phosphorimaging
  • Determine period length through time-series analysis

• Functional Characterization

  • Assess ATPase activity using colorimetric assays
  • Evaluate temperature compensation properties
  • Analyze structural features through X-ray crystallography or cryo-EM

Horizontal Gene Transfer Detection

The identification of horizontal gene transfer events provides valuable chronological markers for constraining evolutionary timelines, as demonstrated with MMPs [23].

Experimental Protocol: HGT Detection and Dating

• Phylogenetic Incongruence Analysis

  • Construct phylogenetic trees for target protein (e.g., MMPs)
  • Compare with species trees based on conserved markers
  • Identify strongly supported conflicting topologies

• Compositional Methods

  • Analyze codon usage bias and GC content
  • Compare with genomic averages to detect alien regions

• Divergence Time Estimation

  • Calibrate molecular clocks using fossil evidence or geological events
  • Apply relaxed molecular clock models (e.g., in BEAST2)
  • Constrain age of HGT events based on donor and recipient lineage divergence

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Protein Clock Studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
Marine Agar 2216 Medium	Isolation and cultivation of marine bacteria	Culturing Colwelliaceae strains for genomic analysis [20]
His-tag Purification Systems	Affinity chromatography of recombinant proteins	Purifying ancestral Kai proteins for in vitro assays [21]
ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate)	Substrate for kinase activity and energy source	In vitro phosphorylation assays of KaiC proteins [21]
LaboPass Bacterial Genomic DNA Isolation Kit	Extraction of high-quality genomic DNA	DNA preparation for whole-genome sequencing [20]
TaKaRa Ex Taq Polymerase	PCR amplification of target genes	Amplification of 16S rRNA genes for preliminary classification [20]
Luciferase/Fluorescent Reporters	Monitoring gene expression dynamics	Real-time tracking of circadian rhythms in synthetic oscillators [24]

Data Visualization and Analysis Frameworks

Effective data visualization is critical for interpreting complex phylogenetic and evolutionary data. The principles of effective scientific visualization should guide the presentation of protein clock data [25].

Best Practices for Visualizing Protein Clock Data:

• Diagram First: Prioritize the information to be conveyed before selecting visualization tools [25]
• Select Appropriate Geometries:
  • Use phylogenetic trees for evolutionary relationships
  • Employ heatmaps for sequence identity comparisons
  • Implement timeline visualizations for evolutionary events
• Ensure Color Contrast: Apply sufficient contrast between elements and backgrounds for readability
• Provide Context: Include scale bars, confidence intervals, and reference points in all visualizations

Figure 2: Kai Protein Circadian Clock Regulatory Network

Future Directions and Applications

The development of novel protein clocks opens exciting avenues for basic research and applied biotechnology. Future directions include:

• Engineering Adapted Microbes: Designing modified cyanobacteria that can adapt to different planetary rotation periods by manipulating Kai-protein oscillator periods [22]
• Improved Molecular Dating: Integrating multiple protein clocks to achieve more accurate dating of evolutionary events across the Tree of Life
• Drug Discovery Applications: Leveraging evolutionary insights to identify new antimicrobial targets through essential conserved proteins

The integration of protein clock data with other molecular and geological evidence will continue to refine our understanding of prokaryotic evolution and enable more precise phylogenetic classification beyond the limitations of 16S rRNA.

The exploration of novel protein clocks represents a paradigm shift in prokaryotic phylogenetic classification and evolutionary timing. Kai proteins in cyanobacteria and matrix metalloproteinases across domains demonstrate the superior resolution and temporal range achievable with protein-based chronometers. The methodological frameworks presented herein provide researchers with comprehensive tools for implementing these approaches, from genome-based taxonomy to ancestral protein reconstruction. As the field advances, these protein clocks will increasingly illuminate the evolutionary history of life on Earth and guide the development of novel biotechnological and therapeutic applications.

The classification of prokaryotes has undergone a profound transformation, shifting from a foundation based on observable phenotypic characteristics to one rooted in genotypic information. This paradigm shift was driven by the limitations of phenotypic methods and the revolutionary discovery that molecular sequences, particularly those of ribosomal RNA genes, provide a robust evolutionary framework for reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. This review chronicles the historical transition in bacterial and archaeal taxonomy, detailing the key technological and conceptual advances that enabled the adoption of genotypic classification. It further explores the contemporary challenges and future directions in the age of genomics, emphasizing the critical role of molecular chronometers in delineating prokaryotic diversity. The integration of genomic data is refining our understanding of microbial evolution and ensuring that classification systems reflect true phylogenetic relationships.

Biological classification, the systematic arrangement of organisms into hierarchical groups, is fundamental for scientific communication and understanding biological diversity. For prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea), the journey toward a natural classification system has been particularly challenging. The Linnaean system, originally developed for plants and animals, relied heavily on morphological traits, which are notoriously limited and often misleading in the microbial world [26]. The critical conceptual underpinning for all modern classification is the distinction between genotype and phenotype, introduced by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1908 [27]. The genotype represents the hereditary information passed from parents to offspring, while the phenotype encompasses the observable physical and behavioral characteristics of an organism, which result from the interaction of its genotype with the environment [27] [28]. This distinction clarified that observable traits alone are insufficient for inferring evolutionary relationships, a realization that ultimately propelled the search for a more fundamental, genetic basis for taxonomy.

The Phenotypic Era: Classification by Observable Traits

The initial classification of prokaryotes was necessarily based on phenotypic markers due to the absence of alternative tools.

Morphological and Physiological Characterization

The first systematic attempt to classify bacteria was spearheaded by Ferdinand Cohn in 1872, who categorized bacteria into six genera based primarily on morphology [29]. This approach was expanded and formalized in Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, first published in 1923. This manual became the standard reference, classifying bacteria into a nested hierarchy (e.g., class, order, family, genus, species) using identification keys based on morphology, culturing conditions, and pathogenic characteristics [26]. The primary goal was practical identification of isolates, with little regard for constructing an evolutionary framework.

Numerical Taxonomy

In the 1960s, numerical taxonomy (or phenetics) introduced a quantitative approach to phenotypic classification. Pioneered by Sokal and Sneath, this method involved comparing dozens of phenotypic characteristics and calculating similarity coefficients between strains [26] [29]. While it improved the objectivity and reproducibility of identification, it remained inherently limited by the choice of tests and lacked a rigorous evolutionary foundation. As noted by Stanier and van Niel during this period, the reliance on phenotypic characteristics made it nearly impossible to establish a natural, phylogenetic system for bacteria [26].

Table 1: Key Methods in Phenotypic Classification of Prokaryotes

Method	Description	Key Limitations
Morphology	Classification based on cell shape, size, arrangement, and staining.	Low resolution; convergent evolution leads to similar morphologies in unrelated groups.
Physiological Tests	Utilization of specific nutrients, fermentation products, temperature, and pH optima.	Phenotype does not reliably predict phylogeny; traits can be gained or lost horizontally.
Numerical Taxonomy	Quantitative comparison of dozens of phenotypic characters to calculate overall similarity.	Depends on selected tests; provides operational classification but no evolutionary insight.

The Genotypic Revolution: Molecular Chronometers as Phylogenetic Guides

The limitations of phenotype-based classification prompted a search for more reliable methods rooted in genetics. The pivotal breakthrough was the proposal by Zuckerkandl and Pauling that informational macromolecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids, could serve as "molecular clocks" to infer evolutionary relationships [26].

The Advent of 16S rRNA Sequencing

Inspired by this concept, Carl Woese and colleagues embarked on a search for a universal molecular chronometer. They identified the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) as an ideal candidate [26]. This molecule possesses several critical properties:

• Ubiquitous: Essential and present in all cellular life.
• Functionally Constant: Its core function in protein synthesis is maintained across all lineages.
• Structurally Complex: Contains a mosaic of highly conserved regions (for aligning deep branches) and variable regions (for resolving recent divergences) [26] [29].

Woese's comparative analysis of 16S rRNA sequences led to the monumental discovery of Archaea as a third domain of life, distinct from Bacteria and Eukarya [26]. This finding was impossible to deduce from phenotypic characteristics alone and underscored the power of molecular phylogenetics.

Expanding the Molecular Toolkit

While 16S rRNA became the gold standard, other genotypic methods were developed for different levels of taxonomic resolution:

• DNA-DNA Hybridization (DDH): Used for defining species, with a threshold of ≥70% similarity indicating membership in the same species [29] [30].
• DNA G+C Content: A crude measure where a difference of >5% in the guanine-cytosine content rules out species identity, but similar values do not confirm it [29].
• Multilocus Sequence Analysis (MLSA): Uses the sequences of multiple housekeeping genes to provide better resolution than 16S rRNA alone for closely related species [29].

The impact of 16S rRNA sequencing was so profound that it prompted Bergey's Manual to transition from a phenotypic to a phylogenetic framework in its second edition (2001-2012) [26].

The Genomic Era: Refining Classification with Whole Genomes

The advent of high-throughput sequencing has ushered in the genomic era, further refining and challenging prokaryotic classification.

The Polyphasic Approach and Genomic Thresholds

The current standard for classifying prokaryotes is the polyphasic approach, which integrates phenotypic, chemotaxonomic, and genotypic data within a phylogenetic framework [29]. However, genome sequencing has enabled the establishment of precise, sequence-based thresholds for taxonomic ranks. The most widely accepted standard for species delineation is now the Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI), with a threshold of ≥95% corresponding to the traditional 70% DDH value for species boundaries [29] [30].

Table 2: Genotypic Standards for Prokaryotic Classification in the Genomic Era

Method	Taxonomic Level	Threshold / Application
16S rRNA Gene Identity	Species	≥98.7% identity is a common operational threshold, though not absolute [30] [5].
Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI)	Species	≥95% identity correlates with traditional species definition [29] [30].
DNA-DNA Hybridization (DDH)	Species	≥70% similarity (largely superseded by ANI) [30].
Core Genome Phylogeny	All levels	Uses a set of universal, conserved genes to build a robust phylogenetic tree for higher taxa [29].

Conceptual Challenges: The Pangenome and Gene Flow

Genomics has revealed that prokaryotic genomes are fluid mosaics. The concept of the pangenome—comprising the core genome (shared by all strains) and the accessory genome (present in some strains)—complicates classification [30]. For example, Escherichia coli strains share a core genome of about 2000 genes but have a pangenome exceeding 18,000 genes, with accessory genes often conferring specific ecological functions like virulence [30]. This horizontal gene transfer (HGT) blurs the lines between species, challenging the concept of a species as a discrete, monolithic entity. Despite this, related prokaryotes still form clear genomic clusters, suggesting that gene flow and selection maintain cohesive populations that can be recognized as species [30].

A Case Study in Molecular Chronometry: The Evolution of Circadian Clocks

The principles of molecular chronometry extend beyond ribosomal RNAs. The evolutionary history of bacterial circadian clocks provides a compelling case study of using protein sequences to trace functional evolution deep in time.

Recent research on cyanobacteria has traced the evolution of the Kai-protein circadian oscillator (KaiA, KaiB, KaiC) over billions of years [22] [31]. By reconstructing ancestral Kai proteins and analyzing their functions, scientists determined that the oldest KaiC proteins lacked essential rhythmic functions. The self-sustained circadian oscillator acquired its necessary structure and function around the time of the Great Oxidation Event (~2.3 billion years ago) and Snowball Earth events [22] [31]. Furthermore, the study revealed that the ancestral circadian clock operated on a faster 18-20 hour cycle, reflecting the shorter day length of the ancient Earth [22] [31]. This research demonstrates how molecular chronometers can be used to reconstruct not just evolutionary relationships, but also the functional adaptation of complex systems to planetary history.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Prokaryotic Phylogenetics

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Example / Note
Universal PCR Primers	Amplification of 16S rRNA genes directly from environmental samples or isolates.	Enabled culture-independent profiling of microbial communities [26].
Combinatorial Gene Libraries	Assessing the functional outcomes of all possible amino acid combinations at historically variable sites.	Used in deep mutational scanning to characterize ancestral genotype-phenotype maps [32].
Fluorescent Reporter Assays	High-throughput measurement of biochemical activity (e.g., transcription factor binding).	Yeast GFP reporter systems used to quantify DNA binding specificity for thousands of protein variants [32].
Phylogenetic Databases	Reference databases for sequence comparison and taxonomic assignment.	SILVA, Greengenes, RDP, GTDB [26].

The shift from phenotype to genotype has fundamentally transformed prokaryotic classification from a pragmatic but artificial system into a theory-based discipline rooted in evolutionary history. The use of 16S rRNA as a molecular chronometer initiated this revolution, providing the first objective phylogenetic framework for the microbial world. The subsequent genomic era has brought both refinement and complexity, introducing precise genomic thresholds like ANI while also revealing the fluid nature of prokaryotic genomes through the pangenome and horizontal gene transfer.

Future research will continue to integrate metagenomic data from uncultured organisms, which represent the vast majority of microbial diversity, into a comprehensive tree of life. The challenge ahead lies in reaching a consensus on a single taxonomic framework and adapting nomenclatural codes to systematically incorporate these uncultured taxa [26]. Furthermore, advanced experimental methods for characterizing genotype-phenotype maps, even for ancestral proteins, are providing unprecedented insights into the historical constraints and biases that have shaped phenotypic evolution [32]. As these efforts converge, the classification of prokaryotes will continue to evolve, offering an ever-more accurate reflection of life's evolutionary history.

In the field of prokaryotic systematics, the quest for a universal molecular chronometer to construct a reliable phylogenetic framework has been a long-standing challenge. The ideal phylogenetic biomarker must fulfill two core, and often competing, attributes: essentiality to cellular function and a measurable evolutionary rate that is neither too rapid nor too slow. Essential genes are typically involved in fundamental, information-processing functions (e.g., translation, transcription, replication) and are less prone to lateral genetic transfer (LGT), thereby preserving a vertical phylogenetic signal [6]. Conversely, the evolutionary rate of a gene must be appropriate for the phylogenetic depth being investigated; it requires sufficient sequence conservation to resolve deep evolutionary relationships while containing enough variable sites to elucidate recent divergences [6]. This whitepaper explores these attributes within the context of modern genomics, evaluating historical and contemporary biomarkers against the gold standard of whole-genome phylogenies.

The Evolution of Molecular Chronometers in Prokaryotic Classification

The history of prokaryotic classification has been marked by a transition from phenotypic characteristics to molecular sequences, driven by the need for an evolutionary framework.

• Phenotypic Classification: Early systems, such as Bergey's Manual, relied on morphological and biochemical characteristics. While practical for identification, these phenotypic properties provided little insight into deep evolutionary relationships [6].
• The rRNA Revolution: The work of Woese and colleagues established the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) as the foundational molecular chronometer. Its properties—universal distribution, functional essentiality, and a mixture of highly conserved and variable regions—provided the first robust phylogenetic tree of life, even leading to the discovery of the Archaea [6]. For decades, 16S rRNA has been the primary tool for defining microbial diversity, both from cultured isolates and through culture-independent environmental sequencing [6].
• The Genomic Era: While revolutionary, the 16S rRNA gene represents only a tiny fraction (~0.05%) of a typical prokaryotic genome. The advent of high-throughput sequencing has enabled a shift towards genome-based classification, which uses a larger fraction of the genome to provide a significantly improved phylogenetic signal for both ancient and recent relationships [6]. Phylogenies are now typically inferred from concatenated alignments of dozens to hundreds of conserved, vertically inherited genes [6].

Table 1: Key Transitions in Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

Era	Primary Basis	Key Biomarker	Strengths	Limitations
Phenotypic (Pre-1980s)	Anatomical, Physiological	N/A	Practical for identification	No evolutionary framework
Gene-Centric (1980s-2000s)	Single Gene Phylogeny	16S rRNA Gene	Universal, robust phylogenetic framework	Limited resolution; single gene history
Genomic (2000s-Present)	Multiple Gene/Genome Comparison	Conserved, Essential Gene Sets	High resolution; reflects organismal history	Computationally intensive; requires genome sequences

Core Attributes of an Ideal Phylogenetic Biomarker

Essentiality and Functional Constraint

A robust biomarker must be encoded by a gene that is indispensable for cellular survival. These "core" genes are under strong functional constraint, meaning their protein products are involved in critical, universal cellular processes. This selective pressure minimizes the rate of acceptible amino acid substitutions, leading to slow, clock-like evolution. Furthermore, essentiality correlates with a lower probability of being involved in Lateral Genetic Transfer (LGT), which can create incongruent phylogenetic histories [33]. Genes for ribosomal proteins, the RNA polymerase core subunits, and other components of the central transcriptional and translational machinery are prime examples.

Appropriate Evolutionary Rate

The molecular chronometer must function as both an "hour hand" and a "minute hand" [6]. This is achieved by having a sequence with:

• Highly Conserved Regions: These areas evolve very slowly and are crucial for aligning sequences from distantly related organisms and resolving deep branches in the tree of life.
• Variable Regions: These regions evolve more rapidly and are useful for distinguishing between closely related species and strains.

The 16S rRNA gene successfully embodies this principle. However, its evolutionary rate is sometimes too slow to resolve recently diverged taxa. Genome-based approaches overcome this by using a larger number of genes, effectively averaging the signal across multiple markers with varying rates to achieve resolution across all phylogenetic depths [6].

Additional Critical Attributes

• Universal Distribution: The gene must be present in a single copy in all organisms under study to allow for a comprehensive comparison.
• Adequate Length: The biomarker must be long enough to contain sufficient phylogenetic information to resolve evolutionary nodes.
• Rare Lateral Genetic Transfer (LGT): While LGT is common, especially among closely related organisms [33], a good phylogenetic marker should be resistant to transfer between distantly related taxa. Widespread LGT can create "highways" of gene sharing that obscure the true vertical evolutionary history [33].

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Phylogenetic Biomarkers

Biomarker	Typical Length (bp)	Evolutionary Rate	Resistance to LGT	Primary Phylogenetic Utility
16S rRNA	~1,500	Slow (good "hour hand")	High	Broad taxonomy, from phylum to genus
23S rRNA	~2,900	Slow	High	Similar to 16S, with potentially higher resolution
rpoB (RNA polymerase)	~4,100	Moderate	Moderate to High	Species and strain-level resolution
gyrB (DNA gyrase)	~2,400	Moderate to Fast	Moderate	Species and strain-level resolution
Concatenated Core Genes (e.g., 50-100 genes)	>50,000	Averaged across markers	High (as a set)	Highest resolution across all taxonomic levels

Experimental Protocols for Biomarker Evaluation

Phylogenomic Analysis Using a Supertree Approach

This rigorous protocol evaluates the phylogenetic history of individual genes against a robust, genome-based reference tree [33].

• Data Collection and Clustering: Collect all conceptually translated protein sequences from a set of diverse prokaryotic genomes (e.g., 144 genomes across 15 phyla). Cluster these proteins into orthologous groups (families) using a Markov clustering algorithm to identify related sequences [33].
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: For each orthologous family, perform a multiple sequence alignment. Use an objective function (e.g., Word-Oriented Objective Function - WOOF) to select the optimal alignment from different algorithms. Refine the alignment by removing ambiguously aligned regions [33].
• Reference Supertree Construction:
  • Infer a Bayesian phylogenetic tree for each aligned protein family.
  • Extract all strongly supported bipartitions (e.g., posterior probability ≥ 0.95) from these individual gene trees.
  • Use the Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP) method to construct a consensus "supertree" from all supported bipartitions. This supertree serves as the reference hypothesis of organismal relationships [33].
• Identification of Discordance: For each protein tree, compare its strongly supported bipartitions to the reference supertree. Bipartitions that are concordant support vertical inheritance. Those that are discordant provide evidence for possible Lateral Genetic Transfer or other confounding evolutionary events [33].
• Quantifying LGT: For each discordant protein tree, compute the minimal number of "subtree prune-and-regraft" operations (edit distance) required to make it consistent with the supertree. This edit path represents a hypothesis about the LGT events that occurred. Events implied by many independent protein trees define "highways" of gene sharing [33].

Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) for Species Demarcation

For defining species boundaries, genome-wide similarity measures are now the gold standard, supplementing or replacing single-gene analyses.

• Genome Fragmentation: Take the whole genome sequences of two prokaryotic isolates and fragment them into consecutive 1020 bp segments.
• Bidirectional Comparison: Perform BLASTN comparisons between all fragments of the two genomes.
• Identity Calculation: Identify all mutually best hits (bi-directional best matches) and calculate the average nucleotide identity across all these aligned fragments.
• Interpretation: An ANI value of ~95-96% is widely accepted as the operational threshold for demarcating prokaryotic species, correlating with the traditional DNA-DNA hybridization value of 70% [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Tools for Phylogenomic Research

Item / Reagent	Function / Explanation
High-Throughput Sequencer (e.g., Illumina, PacBio)	Provides the raw genome sequence data required for all downstream phylogenomic analyses from both cultured isolates and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs).
Markov Clustering Algorithm (e.g., OrthoMCL)	Computational tool for grouping protein sequences from multiple genomes into orthologous families, a critical first step in comparative genomics [33].
Multiple Sequence Alignment Tool (e.g., MAFFT, MUSCLE)	Software that aligns orthologous protein or nucleotide sequences to identify regions of homology, which is a prerequisite for phylogenetic tree inference [33].
Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference Software (e.g., MrBayes, PhyloBayes)	Generates phylogenetic trees with associated posterior probabilities, providing a robust statistical framework for assessing support for evolutionary relationships [33].
Supertree Construction Software (e.g., CLANN, RAxML)	Tools that implement methods like Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP) to build a consensus tree from numerous individual gene trees [33].
Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) Calculator (e.g., OrthoANI, FastANI)	Specialized software or pipelines for rapidly calculating genome-wide ANI values to determine species-level relatedness [6].

Visualizing Incongruence: LGT and Phylogenetic Discordance

Lateral Genetic Transfer creates discordance between the evolutionary history of a gene and the history of the organism. The following diagram illustrates how this incongruence is detected and quantified.

The trajectory of prokaryotic phylogenetic classification demonstrates a clear evolution from single-molecule chronometers to holistic genome-based frameworks. The core principles of essentiality and a calibrated evolutionary rate remain the bedrock for evaluating phylogenetic biomarkers. The 16S rRNA gene, with its optimal balance of these properties, was instrumental in laying the foundation. However, the future of robust phylogenetic inference lies in leveraging the power of entire genomes, using carefully selected sets of conserved, essential genes to construct a stable reference tree. This approach naturally accommodates the reality of LGT, allowing researchers to distinguish the dominant vertical signal from the confounding but biologically important horizontal signals, ultimately leading to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of prokaryotic evolution.

The pursuit of robust molecular chronometers for prokaryotic phylogenetic classification has traditionally relied on a limited set of conserved genetic markers, primarily ribosomal RNA genes. However, emerging research reveals substantial limitations in this approach, particularly for resolving deep evolutionary relationships and leveraging metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). The 16S rRNA marker, long considered the gold standard for phylogenetic surveys of microbial diversity, rarely recovers completely from shotgun metagenomic sequences and reflects only gene evolution rather than organismal evolutionary history [34]. This constraint has propelled the search for novel molecular clocks that can provide greater phylogenetic resolution and accuracy.

Concurrently, research on ribosomal biology has uncovered an unexpected dimension of temporal regulation—circadian control of ribosome composition and function. Recent studies demonstrate that the circadian clock rhythmically alters ribosomal protein incorporation, creating specialized ribosomes with time-dependent translational properties [35] [36]. This discovery reveals a new class of molecular timers embedded within the core translational machinery, suggesting that ribosomal proteins serve dual purposes in cellular timekeeping and phylogenetic inference. This whitepaper examines how these expanding toolkits of ribosomal proteins and other novel molecular clocks are transforming prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research.

Limitations of Traditional Phylogenetic Markers

Traditional phylogenetic marker selection has been constrained by stringent criteria requiring markers to be present in at least 90% of genomes and exist as a single copy in at least 95% of them [34]. This approach severely limits the potential marker pool, with only approximately 1% of gene families in microbial genomes meeting these restrictive criteria. The problem is further exacerbated in MAGs, which seldom contain the entire genomic repertoire of a population and often lack standard marker genes due to assembly errors [34].

The molecular clock hypothesis, which posits that genes (proteins) evolve at constant rates as long as their biological function remains unchanged, has been fundamental to phylogenetic dating [37]. However, this model shows significant limitations in prokaryotes due to horizontal gene transfer (HGT) events, particularly xenologous gene displacement where a gene is displaced by an ortholog from a different lineage [37]. Genome-wide analyses reveal that while clock-like evolution dominates in approximately 70% of orthologous gene sets across major bacterial lineages, the remainder show substantial anomalies explainable by HGT or lineage-specific acceleration of evolution [37].

Table 1: Traditional vs. Expanded Approaches to Microbial Phylogenetic Markers

Aspect	Traditional Approach	Expanded Approach
Marker Selection	Restricted to universal single-copy orthologs	Includes gene families beyond universal orthologs
Coverage	1% of gene families qualify	Hundreds to thousands of gene families available
Genomic Sources	Curated reference genomes	Reference genomes + Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs)
Typical Markers	16S rRNA, ribosomal proteins	Functionally diverse genes including metabolic enzymes
Handling of HGT	Often produces anomalies	Systematic detection and accommodation

Ribosomal Proteins as Circadian-Regulated Molecular Clocks

Circadian Control of Ribosome Composition

Groundbreaking research using Neurospora crassa has demonstrated that the circadian clock drives rhythmic changes in ribosome composition through regulated incorporation of specific ribosomal proteins [35]. Mass spectrometry analyses of ribosomes across circadian time identified six ribosomal proteins and one associated factor under clock control, with ribosomal protein eL31 showing particularly strong rhythmic regulation [35]. Deletion of the el31 gene disrupted translation rhythms in nearly half of all rhythmically translated mRNAs, indicating its crucial role in temporal regulation of protein synthesis [35].

This circadian control extends to multiple aspects of ribosomal biology. In mouse liver, the circadian clock coordinates the transcription of ribosomal protein mRNAs and ribosomal RNAs, while also influencing the temporal translation of mRNAs involved in ribosome biogenesis [38]. This regulation occurs through clock-controlled expression of translation initiation factors and rhythmic activation of signaling pathways that modulate their activity [38]. The adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway shows daytime activity, while the target of rapamycin complex 1 (TORC1) pathway activates at night, creating antiphasic rhythms in phosphorylation states of key translation initiation factors [38].

Functional Consequences for Translation Fidelity

Beyond merely regulating the timing of protein synthesis, circadian control of ribosome composition significantly impacts translational accuracy. Research demonstrates that rhythmic incorporation of eL31 promotes circadian control of translation termination and affects elongation fidelity while maintaining magnesium ion homeostasis, a key determinant of translational accuracy [35]. This temporal regulation of translation fidelity allows cells to dynamically balance protein synthesis accuracy with energy expenditure across the daily cycle.

The mechanistic basis for this regulation involves zuotin, a ribosome-associated factor implicated in protein folding, which works in concert with circadian-regulated ribosomal proteins to temporally coordinate translational accuracy [35]. This finding reveals that the circadian clock expands the functional diversity of the proteome beyond the static genetic blueprint by regulating both when proteins are produced and how accurately they are synthesized [36].

Diagram 1: Circadian Regulation of Ribosome Function. The molecular clock controls ribosome composition through direct transcriptional control and signaling pathways, ultimately affecting both translation timing and fidelity to expand proteome diversity.

Advanced Methodologies for Marker Selection and Phylogenomics

Tailored Marker Selection with TMarSel

The TMarSel (Tailored Marker Selection) computational tool addresses critical limitations in traditional marker selection by enabling automated, systematic identification of phylogenetic markers tailored to specific input genome collections [34]. This approach moves beyond the restrictive requirement for universal single-copy orthologs, instead leveraging the full gene family pool to maximize phylogenetic signal. The method operates through several key steps:

• Gene Family Annotation: Open reading frames (ORFs) are annotated using KEGG and EggNOG databases, achieving annotation rates of 54-94% for reference genomes and 47-87% for MAGs [34].

• Copy Number Matrix Construction: A matrix is built containing copy numbers of gene families across genomes, with user-controlled thresholds for copy number filtration.

• Iterative Marker Selection: An algorithm iteratively selects k markers such that the generalized mean number of markers per genome is maximized, with parameter p controlling bias toward genomes with fewer (p<0) or more (p>0) gene families [34].

TMarSel runtime scales sublinearly with marker number, requiring approximately 10 minutes and 10 GB memory for selecting 1,000 markers from typical genome datasets [34]. This efficiency enables practical application to large-scale phylogenomic studies incorporating diverse MAGs.

Table 2: TMarSel Parameters and Their Impact on Phylogenetic Inference

Parameter	Function	Impact on Tree Quality
k (number of markers)	Controls total markers selected	Larger k reduces error, especially with noisy gene trees
p (exponent)	Biases selection toward genomes with fewer (p<0) or more (p>0) gene families	p ≤ 0 yields species trees with fewer errors
Copy threshold	Controls maximum copies per gene family included	Multiple copies negatively impact quality; stricter thresholds improve accuracy
Annotation database	KEGG or EggNOG for gene family annotation	Similar performance; choice depends on genome characteristics

Experimental Protocols for Circadian Ribosome Research

Research investigating ribosomal proteins as molecular clocks employs sophisticated experimental workflows. The protocol for identifying circadian-regulated ribosomal components involves:

• Circadian Time-Series Sampling: Organisms are entrained to precise light-dark cycles and samples collected across multiple circadian timepoints under constant conditions to exclude environmental influences [35] [38].

• Ribosome Purification: Ribosomes are isolated using sucrose density gradient centrifugation, allowing separation of functional ribosomal complexes from free ribosomal proteins [35].

• Mass Spectrometry Analysis: Purified ribosomes are subjected to quantitative mass spectrometry to identify proteins showing circadian rhythms in abundance [35].

• Genetic Manipulation: Candidate ribosomal protein genes are deleted using targeted gene replacement, followed by assessment of translational rhythms and fidelity in mutant strains [35].

• Translational Fidelity Assays: Measurements include (1) stop-codon readthrough assays to assess termination fidelity, (2) frame-shifting reporters for elongation accuracy, and (3) magnesium sensitivity assays due to Mg²⁺'s role in translational accuracy [35].

For phylogenetic applications, the workflow involves:

• Genome Annotation: ORF prediction and annotation using KEGG and/or EggNOG databases [34].

• Marker Selection: TMarSel execution with user-defined parameters for marker number and copy thresholds [34].

• Multiple Sequence Alignment: For each selected marker, homologous sequences are aligned using standard tools [34].

• Gene Tree Inference: Individual gene trees are constructed for each marker [34].

• Species Tree Reconstruction: ASTRAL-Pro2 summary method integrates gene trees to infer species trees, handling multiple homologs per gene family [34].

Diagram 2: Phylogenomic Workflow Using Tailored Marker Selection. The TMarSel pipeline enables automated selection of phylogenetic markers tailored to input genomes, improving tree inference accuracy compared to fixed marker sets.

Integration for Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

Combining Circadian and Evolutionary Clocks

The integration of ribosomal proteins as both circadian regulators and phylogenetic markers creates powerful opportunities for prokaryotic classification. The molecular clock hypothesis, originally formulated through comparisons of hemoglobin tryptic peptides across species [39], has evolved to incorporate sophisticated genome-wide tests for clock-like behavior [37]. Modern approaches compare evolutionary distances within ortholog sets to standard intergenomic distances, identifying deviations suggestive of HGT or lineage-specific acceleration [37].

Ribosomal proteins offer particular promise as dual-purpose markers due to their dual characteristics: (1) they are predominantly vertically inherited, with relatively rare horizontal transfer compared to metabolic genes, and (2) they undergo regulated compositional changes that reflect cellular timekeeping mechanisms [35] [37]. This combination of evolutionary stability and regulated variability provides complementary information for resolving phylogenetic relationships while understanding functional adaptation.

Practical Applications and Considerations

The expanded marker toolkit enables significantly improved phylogenetic accuracy across diverse prokaryotic lineages. Studies demonstrate that tailored marker selection improves tree accuracy for both reference genomes and MAGs, even when MAGs lack substantial fractions of ORFs [34]. Notably, the functional diversity of expanded marker sets extends beyond traditional housekeeping genes to include metabolic enzymes, cellular process components, and environmental information processing proteins [34].

For researchers applying these approaches, key considerations include:

• Taxonomic Sampling Balance: TMarSel maintains robustness against taxonomic imbalance in input genomes, but careful dataset construction remains important [34].

• Circadian Timing in Experimental Design: For studies investigating ribosomal protein regulation, precise circadian synchronization and sampling protocols are essential [35] [38].

• Handling of Horizontal Gene Transfer: Genome-wide clock tests can identify HGT-affected genes for exclusion from phylogenetic analyses [37].

• Integration with Fossil Evidence: Molecular clocks should be calibrated using fossil evidence when possible, following frameworks like TimeTree [39].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ribosomal Protein and Molecular Clock Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Model Organisms	Neurospora crassa, Mouse (Mus musculus)	Circadian ribosome biology studies [35] [38]
Genome Databases	Web of Life 2 (WoL2), Earth Microbiome Project (EMP)	Source of reference genomes and MAGs [34]
Annotation Databases	KEGG, EggNOG	Gene family annotation for marker selection [34]
Software Tools	TMarSel, ASTRAL-Pro2, MAP, T-Coffee	Marker selection, tree inference, sequence alignment [34] [37]
Antibodies	Anti-phospho-EIF4E, Anti-phospho-RPS6, Anti-4E-BP1	Detection of rhythmic phosphorylation in translation factors [38]
Mass Spectrometry	Quantitative proteomics platforms	Identification of ribosomal protein composition rhythms [35]

The expanding toolkit of ribosomal proteins and other novel molecular clocks represents a paradigm shift in prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research. The integration of circadian biology with phylogenomics reveals that ribosomal proteins serve not only as evolutionary chronometers but also as cellular timekeepers that regulate translation according to daily rhythms. The development of computational approaches like TMarSel enables researchers to move beyond restrictive marker selection criteria and leverage the full gene family space for improved phylogenetic resolution. These advances are particularly crucial for leveraging the wealth of genomic information contained in metagenome-assembled genomes, which encompass the majority of microbial diversity but often lack traditional marker genes. As these toolkits continue to expand and integrate, they promise to unlock new dimensions of understanding in microbial evolution, circadian biology, and the fundamental mechanisms linking temporal regulation with evolutionary history.

From Sequences to Timetrees: Methodologies and Applications in Research and Industry

The classification of prokaryotes has undergone a profound transformation, moving from phenotypic observations to a sequence-based phylogenetic framework. For much of scientific history, microbial classification relied heavily on morphological and biochemical characteristics, which provided limited insight into deep evolutionary relationships [6]. The pioneering work of Carl Woese, who used the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) as a molecular chronometer, established the first objective evolutionary framework for life, revealing the three-domain system (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya) [6] [40]. While 16S rRNA sequencing became the gold standard for microbial taxonomy, it has inherent limitations, including poor phylogenetic resolution for closely related species and the inability to represent the complete evolutionary history of an organism [40].

The advent of whole-genome sequencing has addressed these limitations, enabling phylogenomic approaches that use the maximum available sample space for phylogenetic inference [41]. Genome-based classification provides greater resolution than single-gene trees because it utilizes a larger fraction of the genome, offering an improved phylogenetic signal for both ancient and recent relationships [6]. Two principal computational strategies have emerged for reconstructing evolutionary relationships from genomic data: the supermatrix (or concatenation) approach and the supertree approach [42]. These methodologies form the foundation of modern prokaryotic phylogenetics and will be explored in depth throughout this technical guide.

Methodological Foundations: Supermatrix vs. Supertree Approaches

The Supermatrix (Concatenation) Approach

The supermatrix method involves concatenating multiple sequence alignments from different genes into a single "super-alignment," which is then used to infer a phylogenetic tree [43] [44]. This approach effectively treats the entire concatenated dataset as a single entity for phylogenetic analysis, assuming that all genes share a common evolutionary history. The supermatrix method is sometimes referred to as "total evidence" because it uses the raw character data directly [44].

A significant advantage of this approach is its compatibility with sophisticated probabilistic models of sequence evolution (e.g., in Maximum Likelihood or Bayesian inference), which allows for statistical evaluation of branch support and accommodates various evolutionary rates across sites and lineages [43] [42]. The primary drawback is the assumption that all concatenated genes share the same evolutionary history, which can be violated by biological processes like horizontal gene transfer, leading to inaccurate trees with strong statistical support [42].

The Supertree Approach

In contrast, the supertree method involves analyzing each gene alignment separately to estimate individual gene trees, which are subsequently combined into a single consensus species tree [43] [44]. One widely used technique is Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP), where each source tree is converted into a matrix of additive binary characters representing clades; these matrices are then combined and analyzed with maximum parsimony to generate the supertree [45] [44].

The supertree approach does not assume a single evolutionary history for all genes, making it potentially more robust to incidents of horizontal gene transfer [46]. However, most supertree methods are statistically non-parametric and may lose important information during the construction process, such as branch lengths and statistical support for individual clades [44]. Recent developments have sought to incorporate statistical rigor into supertree construction, such as Bayesian supertree models and Matrix Representation with Likelihood (MRL) [46] [44].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Supermatrix and Supertree Methodological Characteristics

Characteristic	Supermatrix Approach	Supertree Approach
Core Principle	Concatenates gene alignments into a single super-alignment for analysis [43]	Combines individual gene trees into a consensus species tree [43]
Data Utilization	Uses raw character data (nucleotide/amino acid sequences) directly [44]	Uses topological information from pre-inferred gene trees [46]
Evolutionary Model	Employs complex probabilistic models of sequence evolution [42]	Lacks an explicit statistical model of evolutionary change (though evolving) [44]
Handling Incongruence	Assumes a common evolutionary history; vulnerable to model violation [42]	Accommodates different gene histories; can be robust to some incongruence [46]
Primary Limitation	Model misspecification can produce strongly supported incorrect trees [42]	Loss of information (branch lengths, support values) during tree construction [44]

Performance Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

Empirical and simulation studies have evaluated the relative performance of supermatrix and supertree methods. In a large-scale study of bacterial and archaeal genomes, Lang et al. (2013) found that a Maximum Likelihood analysis of a concatenated alignment of conserved, single-copy genes and a Bayesian Concordance Analysis (a supertree-like method implemented in BUCKy) produced similar results [42]. Both methods showed strong congruence with the 16S rRNA gene tree, suggesting that either approach can generate a reliable reference phylogeny [42].

Simulation studies indicate that while supermatrix methods generally have a higher probability of inferring the true species tree, MRP-supertree methods are competitive runners-up and can even outperform supermatrix approaches in scenarios with significant disagreement between gene trees and the species tree [44]. Another study highlighted that a hierarchical Bayesian supertree model (as implemented in the program guenomu) performed well under complex simulation scenarios that included both incomplete lineage sorting and gene duplication and loss [46].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Genome-Based Phylogenetic Methods

Method Category	Computational Efficiency	Resolution Power	Handling Incomplete Data	Robustness to HGT
Single Gene (16S rRNA)	High	Low to Moderate [40]	High	High (rRNA genes rarely transferred) [47]
Supermatrix (Concatenation)	Moderate to Low (depends on dataset size)	High [6] [48]	Low (requires overlapping taxa)	Low to Moderate [42]
Bayesian Supertree	Moderate	High [46]	High (works with non-overlapping taxa) [46]	High [46]
MRP Supertree	High	Moderate to High [45]	High (works with non-overlapping taxa) [45]	Moderate to High [44]

Integrated Workflow for Genome-Based Phylogenetic Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive workflow for conducting genome-based phylogenetic analysis, integrating both supermatrix and supertree approaches while highlighting key decision points and quality control checks.

Successful implementation of genome-based classification requires a suite of computational tools and biological resources. The following table details key components of the phylogenomics toolkit.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Phylogenomics

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function
Genome Databases	NCBI Genome, IMG, Genome Reviews [41] [42]	Sources of validated genomic data for analysis and comparison
Orthology Prediction	OrthoMCL, eggNOG, PhyloSift [42]	Identification of single-copy universal genes across genomes
Alignment Tools	ClustalW, MUSCLE, MAFFT, HMMER [41] [42]	Generation of multiple sequence alignments for each gene
Supermatrix Software	RAxML, MrBayes, PhyloBayes [42]	Phylogenetic inference from concatenated alignments
Supertree Software	CLANN, BUCKy, guenomu [46] [44]	Construction of consensus trees from individual gene trees
Visualization & Analysis	FigTree, iTOL, R/ape	Tree visualization and comparative phylogenetic analysis

Consensus Approaches and Taxonomic Reconciliation

No single gene or method can perfectly resolve all evolutionary relationships, leading to the emergence of consensus approaches that combine information from multiple methods to produce a more robust phylogenetic inference [48]. In a study of Actinobacteria, the ultimate resolved phylogeny was obtained by generating a consensus tree that combined information from both single-gene and whole-genome based phylogenies [48]. This approach proved superior to any single method and highlighted the need for taxonomic amendments within the orders Frankiales and Micrococcales [48].

As genome sequences continue to accumulate, there is a growing effort to reconcile taxonomy with phylogeny by identifying and reclassifying polyphyletic taxa at all ranks [40]. This involves systematic efforts to ensure that taxonomic groupings (phylum to species) form evolutionarily coherent monophyletic groups in genome-based phylogenetic trees, replacing historical classifications based on phenotypic similarities that do not reflect evolutionary relationships [40].

Genome-based classification using supermatrix and supertree approaches has fundamentally transformed prokaryotic phylogenetics, providing an unprecedented resolution for understanding the evolutionary history of microbial life. While both methodologies have distinct strengths and limitations, the emerging consensus is that careful application of both approaches, along with the development of consensus frameworks, provides the most reliable phylogenetic inference [44].

Future developments in this field will likely focus on scaling these methods to accommodate the ever-increasing number of sequenced genomes, including those from uncultured microorganisms obtained through metagenomics and single-cell genomics [40]. Additionally, there is a pressing need for more sophisticated models that can better account for the complex realities of prokaryotic evolution, such as pervasive horizontal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, and gene duplication and loss [46]. The continued refinement of these genome-based phylogenetic frameworks will be essential for developing a truly comprehensive and natural classification of the microbial world.

Molecular dating has become an essential component of evolutionary biology, enabling researchers to estimate divergence times between species. In the era of phylogenomics, the computational burden of Bayesian divergence time estimation has prompted the development of fast molecular dating methods. This technical guide examines two prominent approaches: Penalized Likelihood (PL), implemented in treePL, and the Relative Rate Framework (RRF), implemented in RelTime. We explore their theoretical foundations, implementation protocols, and performance characteristics within the context of prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research. Empirical evaluations across 23 phylogenomic datasets reveal that RRF provides node age estimates statistically equivalent to Bayesian methods while being computationally more efficient—more than 100 times faster than treePL. Both methods offer distinct advantages for researchers working with large-scale genomic data where computational efficiency is paramount.

Molecular dating represents a cornerstone of contemporary evolutionary studies, allowing scientists to reconstruct biological timescales from molecular sequence data. The fundamental premise that substitutions accumulate in a time-correlated manner has revolutionized evolutionary biology since its proposal in the 1960s [49]. Advances in sequencing technologies have generated phylogenomic datasets of unprecedented scale, creating computational challenges for traditional Bayesian molecular dating methods that rely on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling [49] [50]. These limitations have prompted the development of rapid dating approaches, among which Penalized Likelihood (PL) and the Relative Rate Framework (RRF) have emerged as widely adopted solutions [49].

For prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research, molecular dating faces particular challenges due to the lack of a robust fossil record [5]. Bacterial evolution must be inferred primarily from molecular sequences, requiring methods that can accommodate extensive rate variation across lineages. This technical guide provides researchers with a comprehensive resource for implementing and evaluating fast molecular dating methods, with particular emphasis on their application to prokaryotic systems.

Theoretical Foundations

Penalized Likelihood (PL)

Penalized Likelihood incorporates a penalty function to minimize rate changes between adjacent branches across the entire phylogeny [49]. This approach assumes autocorrelation of evolutionary rates, which has been suggested as pervasive across the tree of life [49]. A critical component of PL is the smoothing parameter (λ), which controls the global level of rate variation and is optimized through cross-validation procedures [49]. Lower λ values permit greater rate variation across the phylogeny. PL was first implemented in the r8s software and later refined in treePL to handle large phylogenies [49].

Relative Rate Framework (RRF)

The Relative Rate Framework operates under a different principle, minimizing differences in evolutionary rates between ancestral and descendant lineages individually rather than through a global penalty function [51]. This approach accommodates rate differences between sister lineages while maintaining computational efficiency. RRF estimates divergence times by relaxing the assumption of a strict molecular clock without requiring specification of prior probability distributions for evolutionary rates [51]. The method calculates relative node ages that can be transformed into absolute dates using calibration constraints [51].

Table 1: Core Theoretical Differences Between PL and RRF

Feature	Penalized Likelihood (PL)	Relative Rate Framework (RRF)
Rate assumption	Autocorrelated rates between adjacent branches	Individual minimization of rate differences between ancestor-descendant lineages
Key parameter	Smoothing parameter (λ)	No smoothing parameter required
Calibration requirements	Hard-bounded minimum/maximum values	Allows calibration densities
Uncertainty estimation	Bootstrap approaches	Analytical equations for confidence intervals
Computational demand	High (requires cross-validation)	Low (analytical solutions)

Mathematical Formulation of RRF

For a phylogeny containing three ingroup taxa and one outgroup, RRF calculates relative rates using branch lengths (b) from the tree [51]. The system of equations formalizes the approach:

• r₁/r₂ = b₁/b₂ (Rate ratio between sister lineages)
• r₃/rₐ = b₃/Lₐ (Rate ratio between external and ancestral lineages)
• rₐ = ½(r₁ + r₂) (Ancestral rate as average of descendant rates)
• r₀ = ½(rₐ + r₃) (Root rate as average of descendant rates)
• r₀ = 1 (Normalization condition)

Solving these equations yields analytical solutions for relative rates and node ages [51]. This framework extends to larger trees through similar mathematical principles, providing a computationally efficient alternative to iterative optimization methods.

Implementation Protocols

RelTime (RRF) Implementation

RelTime calculations can be performed using the command-line version of MEGA X or through the R package R3F, which implements RRF for estimating divergence times, inferring lineage rates, and constructing birth-death tree priors for Bayesian dating [52].

Basic Workflow:

• Input Preparation: Molecular sequence alignment and corresponding phylogenetic tree with branch lengths measured in substitutions per site.
• Calibration Setting: Assign calibration constraints using uniform, normal, lognormal, or exponential distributions.
• Analysis Execution: Run RelTime analysis using either the command-line or graphical interface.
• Output Interpretation: Review estimated divergence times with confidence intervals calculated analytically.

Advanced Configuration:

• For datasets with known rate autocorrelation, implement CorrTest to assess lineage rate autocorrelation.
• Use the ddBD method to select data-driven parameters for birth-death speciation model priors.
• For large phylogenies, utilize the geometric mean variant of RRF to balance rate changes between descendant lineages.

treePL (PL) Implementation

Basic Workflow:

• Input Preparation: Rooted phylogenetic tree with branch lengths (outgroups must be removed prior to analysis).
• Parameter Optimization: Run treePL with the 'prime' option to select optimal optimization parameters.
• Cross-Validation: Perform cross-validation to optimize the smoothing parameter (λ) using commands such as:
  This tests 37 different smoothing parameter values [49].
• Final Analysis: Execute with the 'thorough' option for final time estimation.
• Uncertainty Assessment: Calculate confidence intervals from 100 bootstrap replicates summarized in TreeAnnotator.

Calibration Considerations:

• treePL requires hard-bounded minimum and/or maximum values for calibration points.
• When original studies use non-uniform priors, derive minimum and maximum bounds from the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles of the distribution.

Comparative Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core decision logic and procedural flow for selecting and implementing these molecular dating methods:

Performance Comparison

Computational Efficiency

Empirical evaluation across 23 phylogenomic datasets reveals significant differences in computational requirements between methods [49]. RRF (RelTime) demonstrated substantially faster performance, being more than 100 times faster than treePL [49]. This efficiency advantage scales with dataset size, making RRF particularly suitable for large phylogenomic analyses.

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across 23 Phylogenomic Datasets

Metric	RRF (RelTime)	PL (treePL)	Bayesian Methods
Computational speed	Fastest (100x faster than treePL)	Intermediate	Slowest
Node age uncertainty	Moderate confidence intervals	Low uncertainty levels	Model-dependent
Statistical equivalence to Bayesian	Generally equivalent	Variable	Benchmark
Handling of rate autocorrelation	Individual lineage comparison	Global penalty function	Explicit model specification
Scalability to large datasets	Excellent	Good	Poor

Statistical Performance

When compared to Bayesian divergence time estimates, RRF generally provided node age estimates that were statistically equivalent [49]. PL time estimates consistently exhibited low levels of uncertainty but showed greater variation in their correspondence to Bayesian benchmarks [49]. Both methods successfully accommodated rate variation across lineages without requiring a strict molecular clock.

For prokaryotic applications, both methods can address the wide range of substitution rates observed across bacterial taxa [5]. Studies have documented that 16S rRNA evolution rates can vary approximately four-fold across different bacterial lineages (0.025% to 0.091% per million years) [5], highlighting the importance of relaxed clock methods for bacterial dating.

Prokaryotic Applications

Special Considerations for Prokaryotic Classification

Prokaryotic molecular dating presents unique challenges due to limited fossil records, horizontal gene transfer, and diverse lifestyle adaptations that influence evolutionary rates [26] [5]. Obligate endosymbionts and pathogens typically exhibit accelerated evolutionary rates compared to free-living bacteria due to reduced effective population sizes and increased genetic drift [5].

The emergence of genome-based taxonomy frameworks, such as the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB), provides comprehensive phylogenetic frameworks that can be leveraged for molecular dating [26]. These resources offer standardized phylogenies that serve as excellent starting points for timescale estimation.

Recommended Workflow for Prokaryotic Datasets

• Phylogenetic Framework: Establish a robust phylogeny using conserved marker genes or whole genomes.
• Lifestyle Assessment: Categorize taxa according to lifestyle (free-living, facultative association, obligate association) as this influences evolutionary rates.
• Calibration Selection: Identify reliable calibration points from:
  • Cospediation events with dated host fossils
  • Geochemical events that establish maximum constraints
  • Horizontally transferred genes with eukaryotic homologs of known age
• Method Selection: Choose RRF for large datasets or exploratory analyses; select PL for smaller datasets with strong prior knowledge of rate autocorrelation.
• Validation: Compare results across multiple genes and calibration schemes to assess robustness.

Research Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Resources for Molecular Dating Research

Resource	Type	Function	Availability
MEGA X	Software package	Implements RelTime for RRF dating	https://www.megasoftware.net
treePL	Software package	Implements penalized likelihood dating	https://github.com/blackrim/treePL
R3F	R package	R implementation of RRF for dates, rates, and priors	GitHub
GTDB	Database	Genome-based taxonomic framework for prokaryotes	https://gtdb.ecogenomic.org
BEAST 2	Software package	Bayesian molecular dating platform	https://www.beast2.org
FigTree	Software	Visualization of dated phylogenies	http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree

Penalized Likelihood and Relative Rate Framework methods provide computationally efficient alternatives to Bayesian approaches for molecular dating of phylogenomic datasets. For researchers focused on prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, RRF offers particular advantages in scalability and implementation ease, while PL provides finer control over rate autocorrelation assumptions. The choice between methods should be guided by dataset size, computational resources, calibration information availability, and specific research questions. As phylogenomic datasets continue to grow in size and complexity, these fast dating methods will play an increasingly important role in elucidating evolutionary timescales across the microbial tree of life.

The field of prokaryotic phylogenetic classification is at a pivotal juncture, transitioning from phenotype-based and single-gene analyses to comprehensive genome-based frameworks that uncover deep evolutionary relationships [6]. The classification of Bacteria and Archaea has long been hampered by the limitations of culturing and the sparse morphological traits available for comparison. The advent of 16S rRNA sequencing provided a revolutionary molecular chronometer, enabling the first broad phylogenetic classifications of microorganisms and revealing the entire domain of Archaea [6]. However, as the volume of genomic data has exploded, particularly with the rise of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from uncultured prokaryotes, the limitations of single-molecule approaches have become apparent. Modern taxonomy now seeks to build a robust evolutionary framework using entire genome sequences, which provide a significantly improved phylogenetic signal compared to the 16S rRNA gene alone [6].

Within this context, supertree construction methods have emerged as a powerful strategy for inferring a comprehensive phylogeny from multiple, potentially conflicting, gene trees. These methods face a significant challenge: integrating phylogenetic datasets with minimal species overlap. The Chronological Supertree Algorithm (Chrono-STA) addresses this challenge head-on by incorporating the phylogenetic time dimension as a unifying factor. Chrono-STA enables the synthesis of taxonomically restricted phylogenies into a cohesive temporal framework, providing a method to build comprehensive evolutionary trees even from input data with limited shared taxa [53]. This technical guide details the core principles, methodologies, and applications of Chrono-STA, positioning it as a critical tool for modern genome-based classification in the age of big sequence data.

Core Principles of Chrono-STA

The foundational innovation of Chrono-STA is its explicit use of chronological information to constrain and guide the supertree assembly process. Unlike standard supertree methods that primarily leverage topological information, Chrono-STA integrates branch lengths and node ages from constituent timetrees. This approach is grounded in the principle that the evolutionary time scale provides a universal metric for reconciling phylogenetic trees, even when their species overlap is minimal.

The algorithm operates on the basis of several key principles:

• Temporal Consistency: All inferred evolutionary relationships must be consistent with a single, unified timeline of divergence events.
• Minimal Temporal Variance: The integrated supertree should minimize the variance in node ages across all input trees for homologous divergence events.
• Phylogenetic Constraint: The topological search is constrained by temporal boundaries, reducing the solution space and increasing computational efficiency and biological plausibility.

This methodology is particularly suited for the challenges of prokaryotic classification, where horizontal gene transfer can create conflicting gene trees. By focusing on the temporal dimension of conserved, vertically-inherited markers, Chrono-STA helps resolve conflicts and establish a robust species tree [6].

Methodological Framework

Input Requirements and Data Preparation

Chrono-STA requires constituent phylogenies with reliable chronological information. The input data must be carefully prepared and validated to ensure algorithm success.

Table 1: Input Data Requirements for Chrono-STA

Component	Specification	Format	Notes
Constituent Timetrees	Newick format with branch lengths in time units	.nwk files	Trees should be ultrametric (all tips aligned to present)
Taxonomic Scope	Can include taxonomically restricted phylogenies	Flexible	Minimal species overlap between trees is acceptable
Chronological Calibration	Node age constraints or fixed molecular clock rates	Metadata	Ensures temporal consistency across analyses
Software Environment	Python 3 with necessary packages (e.g., DendroPy, NumPy)	Python script	Supported on Unix, macOS, and Windows systems [53]

The algorithm begins with a data validation step where each input tree is checked for chronological consistency and appropriate formatting. The preprocessing phase may involve scaling branch lengths to ensure consistent time units across all inputs and identifying potential outliers in node age estimates.

Core Algorithmic Workflow

The Chrono-STA methodology can be decomposed into several interconnected phases that transform input timetrees into a unified supertree. The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow:

Phase 1: Data Preprocessing and Chronological Alignment

The initial phase focuses on standardizing the temporal framework across all input trees. Each constituent timetree is analyzed to extract its internal node ages and branch length distributions. The algorithm identifies potential conflicts in age estimates for homologous nodes and applies statistical methods to resolve discrepancies. For nodes without direct homologs, the system interpolates age constraints based on phylogenetic position and branch length patterns.

During this phase, the algorithm performs temporal normalization to ensure all trees operate on a compatible timescale. This may involve linear scaling of branch lengths or more complex transformations to align known calibration points across datasets.

Phase 2: Temporal Matrix Construction

Chrono-STA represents phylogenetic information in a novel Temporal Path Matrix that encodes both topological relationships and chronological constraints. For each input tree, the algorithm constructs a matrix where rows represent taxa and columns represent divergence events. Matrix elements encode the temporal distance from each taxon to each divergence event, creating a rich representation of both the topology and timing of evolutionary events.

The mathematical representation of this matrix for a tree with n taxa and m internal nodes is:

These matrices from all input trees are then concatenated and weighted based on tree reliability and taxonomic completeness, forming a composite temporal matrix that serves as the input for supertree construction.

Phase 3: Supertree Assembly with Temporal Constraints

The core of Chrono-STA uses the composite temporal matrix to build an initial supertree through a modified matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) approach. However, unlike standard MRP, the algorithm incorporates temporal constraints during tree search operations. The search for optimal tree topology is guided by a scoring function that combines:

• Topological fit to the input data
• Minimal variance in node age estimates across trees
• Consistency with established chronological constraints

The algorithm employs heuristic search strategies (such as tree bisection and reconnection) with temporal constraints that prune the search space to biologically plausible topologies.

Phase 4: Chronological Refinement and Optimization

The final phase iteratively refines both the topology and branch lengths of the initial supertree. The algorithm employs a temporal consistency optimization that adjusts node ages to minimize conflicts while preserving the topological structure. This process uses a least-squares approach to find node ages that best fit the temporal path matrices from all input trees.

The refinement process continues until convergence criteria are met, typically when improvements in the temporal consistency score fall below a predetermined threshold. The output is a fully resolved timetree with estimated ages for all nodes and measures of confidence for both topological and chronological aspects.

Implementation and Technical Specifications

Computational Requirements and Installation

Chrono-STA is implemented as a Python 3 script (chronosta.py) with cross-platform support for Unix, macOS, and Windows systems [53]. The installation process requires specific computational environment setup:

The software requires several Python packages including DendroPy for phylogenetic computations, NumPy for numerical operations, and SciPy for statistical functions. For large datasets with hundreds of taxa, sufficient RAM (≥16GB recommended) and multi-core processors significantly reduce computation time.

Key Algorithms and Functions

Table 2: Core Algorithms in Chrono-STA Implementation

Algorithm	Function	Mathematical Basis	Output
Temporal Path Calculation	Computes temporal distances from tips to nodes	Modified Dijkstra's algorithm applied to time-scaled trees	Temporal path matrix
Chrono-MRP Encoding	Converts timetrees to binary representation with temporal weights	Matrix representation with parsimony extended with temporal metrics	Weighted binary matrix
Temporally-Constrained Tree Search	Explores tree space within chronological boundaries	Heuristic search (TBR) with temporal pruning	Candidate supertree topologies
Chronological Reconciliation	Optimizes node ages across conflicting estimates	Constrained least-squares optimization with temporal smoothing	Unified node age estimates

The algorithmic complexity of Chrono-STA scales with the number of taxa and input trees. For a supertree with N taxa and K input trees, the temporal matrix construction phase has complexity O(K·N²), while the tree search phase has exponential complexity in worst-case scenarios but is mitigated by temporal constraints that significantly reduce the search space.

Research Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

Successful implementation of Chrono-STA requires both computational tools and biological data resources. The following table details the essential components of the research toolkit for applying Chrono-STA in prokaryotic phylogenetic classification:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Chrono-STA Implementation

Category	Item/Resource	Function/Role in Chrono-STA	Example Sources/Tools
Computational Environment	Python 3 with scientific computing stack	Execution environment for the Chrono-STA algorithm	NumPy, SciPy, DendroPy [53]
Input Data Sources	Time-scaled phylogenetic trees	Constituent phylogenies with chronological information	BEAST, treePL output files (.nwk)
Reference Data	Curated genome sequences	Validation of taxonomic relationships and evolutionary hypotheses	GTDB, NCBI Genome Database [6]
Calibration Points	Fossil evidence or biogeographic events	Anchoring the molecular clock for temporal consistency	Literature-derived calibration priors
Alignment Tools	Multiple sequence alignment software	Preparing data for construction of input trees	MAFFT, MUSCLE, Clustal Omega
Tree Inference Software	Phylogenetic reconstruction programs	Generating constituent trees for Chrono-STA input	RAxML, IQ-TREE, MrBayes
Molecular Clock Software	Bayesian dating programs	Estimating divergence times for input timetrees	BEAST2, MCMCtree, treePL

The selection of appropriate input trees is critical for Chrono-STA success. Trees should be constructed from high-quality alignments of conserved, vertically-inherited marker genes to minimize the impact of horizontal gene transfer, which can create conflicting phylogenetic signals [6]. For prokaryotic classification, a set of 30-40 universal single-copy genes often provides the optimal balance between phylogenetic signal and computational tractability.

Applications in Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

Chrono-STA represents a significant advancement for addressing the specific challenges of microbial taxonomy in the genomic era. Its applications span several critical areas:

Integrating Cultured and Uncultured Diversity

The majority of prokaryotic diversity remains uncultured, represented only by MAGs from environmental sequencing [6]. Chrono-STA enables the placement of these uncultured lineages within a comprehensive phylogenetic framework by integrating trees from different taxonomic groups, even with minimal overlap. This allows systematists to build a complete tree of life that includes both cultivated representatives and the uncultured majority.

Resolving Deep Branches in the Tree of Life

Deep phylogenetic relationships, particularly near the root of the bacterial and archaeal domains, have proven difficult to resolve with standard methods. By incorporating chronological information from multiple markers, Chrono-STA provides additional constraints that help break up long branches and resolve ancient relationships. The temporal dimension serves as an independent source of information that complements sequence data.

Taxonomic Delineation at Different Ranks

Modern prokaryotic taxonomy increasingly uses genome-based methods for delineating taxa at different ranks, with Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) for species and conserved markers for higher ranks [6]. Chrono-STA contributes to this framework by providing explicit temporal boundaries for taxonomic ranks, potentially leading to a more consistent and evolutionarily grounded classification system where ranks correspond to specific evolutionary time depths.

The following diagram illustrates how Chrono-STA integrates various data types into a unified classification framework:

Comparative Analysis with Alternative Methods

Chrono-STA occupies a unique position in the landscape of phylogenetic integration methods. The table below contrasts its features with other common approaches:

Table 4: Methodological Comparison of Phylogenetic Integration Approaches

Method	Data Input	Species Overlap Requirement	Temporal Framework	Scalability to Large Datasets
Chrono-STA	Time-scaled trees	Minimal	Explicit, integral to method	High with temporal constraints
Supermatrix	Sequence alignments	Complete overlap for all taxa	Post-hoc estimation	Limited by alignment size
Standard Supertree	Topologies (with or without branch lengths)	Moderate	Not incorporated	Moderate to high
Species Tree from Gene Trees	Gene tree topologies and optionally branch lengths	Complete overlap for all genes	Can be incorporated in some implementations	Limited by number of genes

The distinctive advantage of Chrono-STA lies in its ability to leverage chronological information as a unifying principle when taxonomic overlap is insufficient for other methods. This makes it particularly valuable for integrating datasets from different research groups or specialized taxonomic foci.

Future Directions and Development

As genomic sequencing continues to accelerate, with particular growth in metagenomic data, the importance of scalable phylogenetic integration methods will only increase. Future developments for Chrono-STA and similar methods may include:

• Integration with phylogenetic placement algorithms for adding single taxa to existing frameworks without full reanalysis
• Bayesian implementations that explicitly model uncertainty in both topology and node ages
• Cloud-native implementations for scaling to millions of taxa across distributed computing environments
• Automated curation pipelines for filtering and weighting input trees based on quality metrics

The ongoing challenge of constructing a comprehensive, genome-based taxonomy for prokaryotes demands methods like Chrono-STA that can synthesize disparate data sources into a unified evolutionary framework [6]. As the field moves toward a complete tree of life, the integration of chronological information with phylogenetic inference will play an increasingly central role in revealing the evolutionary history of microbial life on Earth.

In evolutionary biology, a timetree represents a phylogenetic tree where branch lengths are proportional to time, providing an absolute timescale for evolutionary events. Constructing accurate timetrees is central to addressing fundamental questions in evolutionary biology and macroevolution, such as the timing and dynamics of evolutionary radiations and mass extinction events. The calibration of these trees—the process of anchoring divergence points to absolute time—represents one of the most critical and challenging aspects of molecular dating. While the fossil record once provided our only source for establishing an evolutionary timeline, the incompleteness and non-uniformity of this record limit its precision. Molecular dating, which combines evidence from geological and molecular records, can generate a more complete and precise timeline, but its accuracy depends heavily on the quality and implementation of calibration points.

The sensitivity of timetree construction to calibration data is well-recognized, as Bayesian analyses typically contain no further explicit information on absolute time beyond the paleontological data used. Consequently, the priors derived from fossil evidence tend to constrain the range of dates in the resulting timetree significantly. This dependence means that construction methods with priors favoring a literal reading of the fossil record will tend to collapse nodes onto the ages of first appearance data. This review provides an in-depth examination of calibration techniques, focusing on the integrated use of fossil evidence and geological events to construct robust timetrees, with particular attention to applications in prokaryotic evolutionary research.

The Paleontological Framework for Divergence Time Estimation

The Three Components of Paleontological Estimation

Paleontological estimation of divergence times involves three distinct components that must be carefully considered in calibration design:

• Minimum Age Constraints: Establishing the minimum estimate of divergence time represents the most straightforward component, consisting of identifying the oldest fossil of the focal lineage, known as its First Appearance Datum. This minimum age constraint corresponds to the age of the oldest appearance in the fossil record of the first fossilizable apomorphy of the focal lineage. In morphological terms, this represents the first diagnosable morphological feature that can be reliably assigned to a lineage [54].

• Estimating the Temporal Gap (ΔTGap): Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, a literal reading will always be biased, as the age of the FAD necessarily post-dates the actual divergence time. The second component therefore involves estimating the size of this temporal gap between the FAD and the true time of origin of the first fossilizable apomorphy. Statistical approaches can be used, but their rigor is challenged by the fact that the probability of finding fossils of a clade generally decreases as one approaches its time of origin due to factors including limited geographic distribution, lower population sizes, and fewer diagnosable morphological features [54].

• Estimating the Morphological Lag (ΔTDiv-1stApo): The third and most challenging component involves estimating the gap between the true time of origin of the first apomorphy and the actual genetic divergence time between the focal lineage and its extant sister clade. This factor, often ignored in dating analyses, accounts for the lag between genetic separation and the development of the first fossilizable diagnosable morphological feature. Depending on the taxon, one or both of ΔTGap and ΔTDiv-1stApo can be substantial [54].

Challenges Inherent in the Fossil Record

Several fundamental challenges complicate the use of fossil evidence for timetree calibration:

• Heterogeneity in Fossil Preservation: The stochastic nature of the fossil record means that gap sizes between FADs and true divergence times will be heterogeneous across lineages. This heterogeneity becomes particularly relevant when generating timetrees with methods that use uncorrelated rates of molecular evolution and when contemplating cross-validation approaches. This variability can lead to substantial differences in estimated evolutionary rates if not properly accounted for [54].

• Phylogenetic Uncertainty: Fossils can rarely be placed in phylogenies with the same confidence as extant taxa, introducing uncertainty in their relationship to the calibration node. This problem is particularly acute for deep divergences where fossil morphology may be especially difficult to interpret.

• Temporal and Geographic Gaps: The rock and fossil records contain idiosyncratic temporal and geographic gaps that create uneven sampling through time and across clades. These gaps may reflect geological processes, collection biases, or original distribution patterns rather than true evolutionary patterns.

• Changing Preservation Potential: The preservation potential of a group may change significantly during its history due to evolutionary changes in morphology, ecology, or distribution, further complicating the relationship between observed fossil occurrences and true evolutionary history.

Quantitative Approaches to Fossil Calibration

Establishing Minimum and Maximum Bounds

While minimum brackets can be established robustly using well-dated fossils that can be reliably assigned to lineages based on positive morphological evidence, maximum brackets present considerably greater challenges. It is inherently difficult to establish definitive evidence that the absence of a taxon in the fossil record is real and not merely due to incompleteness. Five primary methods have been developed to estimate maximum age brackets, each with particular strengths and limitations [54]:

• Confidence interval approaches based on the distribution of fossil finds within a stratigraphic range
• Stratigraphic likelihood methods that model the probability of fossil preservation and recovery
• Lineage-through-time approaches that use branching patterns to estimate origin times
• Molecular clock methods that use rate extrapolation from better-calibrated parts of the tree
• Geological event calibration that ties divergences to dated geological events

Each method operates under different assumptions about the fossilization process and requires different types of supporting data, with performance varying across taxonomic groups and geological time periods.

Statistical Frameworks for Calibration

Bayesian molecular clock dating incorporates fossil calibration information through the prior on divergence times. Research has evaluated different strategies for converting fossil calibrations into time priors, with findings indicating that truncation has a great impact on calibrations, so that effective priors on calibration node ages after truncation can differ substantially from user-specified calibration densities [55].

Table 1: Comparison of Fossil Calibration Implementation Strategies

Strategy	Key Principle	Impact on Time Prior	Best Application Context
Simple Bounds	Uses minimum and maximum age bounds without reference to related nodes	High sensitivity to maximum bound specification; may produce biologically implausible priors	Well-constrained nodes with abundant fossil data
Automatic Truncation	Enforces ancestor-descendant relationships through mathematical constraints	Significant impact on calibrations; effective priors may differ substantially from specified densities	Large datasets with complex node relationships
Birth-Death Informed	Incorporates lineage diversification patterns into prior construction	Reduces extreme values; produces more biologically realistic time distributions	Trees with well-understood diversification patterns

The choice of strategy for generating the effective prior has considerable impact, leading to very different marginal effective priors. Research has shown that arbitrary parameters used to implement minimum-bound calibrations can strongly impact both the prior and posterior of divergence times, highlighting the importance of inspecting the joint time prior before any Bayesian dating analysis [55].

Geological and Geochemical Calibration Methods

Geological Event Calibration

Geological events provide valuable alternative calibration points, particularly for groups with poor fossil records. These methods rely on establishing causal links between geological phenomena and biological divergences:

• Vicariance Events: Tectonic movements, such as the separation of land masses or the formation of mountain ranges, can fragment populations and initiate speciation. Well-dated geological events like the opening of the Atlantic Ocean or the uplift of the Isthmus of Panama provide powerful calibration points.

• Island Formation: The emergence of volcanic islands or the separation of continental fragments creates new habitats for colonization and subsequent diversification. Dated island ages can constrain the maximum age of endemic lineages.

• Sea-Level Changes: Major fluctuations in sea level can create and destroy land bridges, alternately connecting and isolating populations in predictable ways.

However, the reliability of "associated geological dates" has been debated, with critics noting that few examples exist of major groups whose divergences can be definitively tied to specific geological events [56].

Geochemical and Isotopic Calibrations

For prokaryotes and other microorganisms with limited fossil records, geochemical evidence provides particularly valuable calibration points:

• Biomarker Evidence: Molecular fossils of biologically informative lipids and other organic compounds can provide minimum age constraints for specific metabolic innovations. For example, steranes derived from eukaryotic membranes and hopanoids derived from bacterial membranes provide minimum dates for the evolution of these lineages.

• Isotopic Evidence: Distinctive isotopic fractionation patterns associated with specific metabolic processes can be preserved in the rock record. The appearance of fractionated sulfur isotopes in the sedimentary record, for example, provides evidence for the origin of sulfate reduction.

• Great Oxidation Event: The rapid rise in atmospheric oxygen approximately 2.3 billion years ago provides a constraint for the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic metabolisms, with research suggesting an origin of aerobic methanotrophy between 2.5-2.8 Ga [57].

Table 2: Major Geochemical Events as Prokaryote Calibration Points

Geochemical Event	Approximate Age (Ga)	Biological Significance	Relevant Microbial Groups
Origin of Methanogenesis	3.8-4.1	First evidence of methane production	Methanogenic archaea
Origin of Phototrophy	Prior to 3.2	Development of light-capturing metabolism	Photosynthetic bacteria
Terrabacteria Colonization	2.8-3.1	Early adaptation to terrestrial habitats	Actinobacteria, Deinococcus, Cyanobacteria
Great Oxidation Event	2.3-2.4	Rise of atmospheric oxygen	Cyanobacteria, aerobic bacteria

Genomic studies incorporating these constraints have yielded a timescale of prokaryote evolution suggesting a Hadean origin of life (prior to 4.1 Ga), an early origin of methanogenesis (3.8-4.1 Ga), and an early colonization of land 2.8-3.1 Ga [57].

Prokaryote-Specific Challenges and Approaches

The Limited Prokaryote Fossil Record

Prokaryotes present exceptional challenges for timetree calibration due to their limited fossil record. While eukaryotic fossils can often be identified based on morphological complexity, the simple and conservative morphology of prokaryotes makes definitive identification difficult. Limited information on specific prokaryotic groups has been obtained from analyses of isotopic concentrations and detection of biomarkers, but these provide only coarse constraints [57].

The reconstruction of prokaryote evolutionary history is further complicated by both horizontal and vertical inheritance of genes. Horizontal gene transfer events are of great interest for their roles in creating functionally new combinations of genes, but they pose significant problems for investigating phylogenetic history and divergence times. While a complete absence of HGT appears unlikely, genes belonging to different functional categories are horizontally transferred with different frequencies, with genes involved in translation having lower transfer frequencies [57] [58].

Molecular Chronometers for Prokaryote Phylogeny

Given the challenges with traditional fossil evidence, prokaryote timetree construction relies heavily on molecular chronometers—genetic sequences that accumulate mutations in a generally clock-like fashion. Useful molecular chronometers share several key characteristics:

• Universal Distribution: The gene must be present across all taxa being compared
• Functional Homology: The gene must perform the same fundamental function in all organisms
• Sequence Conservation: The gene must contain regions of sufficient conservation for alignment
• Appropriate Evolutionary Rate: The substitution rate must be matched to the phylogenetic depth

Ribosomal RNA genes, particularly the 16S rRNA, have served as the primary molecular chronometer for prokaryotes since Carl Woese's pioneering work in the 1970s. However, genome-scale analyses now enable phylogenies based on concatenated sequences of multiple proteins, decreasing the variance of time estimates and increasing node confidence [57] [59].

Molecular Chronometer Workflow: This diagram illustrates the key steps in constructing a prokaryote timetree using molecular chronometers, from genome sequence data to the final calibrated phylogeny.

Whole-Genome Approaches

The advent of complete genome sequencing has enabled alignment-free phylogenetic methods that circumvent some limitations of single-gene approaches. The Composition Vector Tree approach, for example, utilizes the frequency of peptide sequences of a fixed length K (K-peptides) in whole proteomes to infer phylogenetic relationships. This method is particularly valuable for prokaryotes as it:

• Uses whole genomes as input data, circumventing gene selection bias
• Employs alignment-free methods, avoiding issues with remote homology detection
• Is insensitive to annotation details
• Naturally incorporates both vertical inheritance and horizontal gene transfer as evolutionary mechanisms [59]

The CVTree approach has demonstrated strong agreement with established taxonomy across thousands of genomes, providing confidence in its application to deep evolutionary questions where traditional markers may be insufficient.

Integrated Calibration Frameworks

Combined Fossil and Molecular Approaches

The most robust timetrees incorporate multiple lines of evidence from both fossil and molecular data. The Fossilized Birth-Death process provides a coherent framework for integrating fossil occurrences directly into the tree model, rather than treating them merely as calibration points. This approach explicitly models the processes of speciation, extinction, and fossil recovery, potentially providing more accurate estimates of divergence times while properly accounting for uncertainties in the fossil record [60].

However, simulations have shown that non-uniform sampling of fossils or extant taxa can lead to biased age estimates under the FBD model, particularly when the fossil record is reduced to only the oldest fossil of each branch. Alternative node dating approaches, such as the CladeAge method, may show better behavior in the presence of selective sampling in simulated data [60].

Handling Uncertainty in Calibration

All calibration approaches involve multiple sources of uncertainty that must be properly accounted for in divergence time estimation:

• Fossil Age Uncertainty: The geological age of fossils is never known precisely, with uncertainty arising from dating methods, stratigraphic interpretation, and association between the fossil and dated materials. Fixing fossil ages to a point within the known range of stratigraphic uncertainty produces incorrect estimates of both topology and divergence times; explicitly modeling this uncertainty produces superior results [60].

• Phylogenetic Placement Uncertainty: The assignment of fossils to specific nodes in the molecular phylogeny may be uncertain. Tip-dating approaches, which include fossils as tips in the tree rather than as calibrations on nodes, can help mitigate this uncertainty by allowing the analysis to simultaneously estimate phylogenetic placement and divergence times.

• Model Specification Uncertainty: The choice of evolutionary model, clock model, and tree prior all influence divergence time estimates. Model comparison approaches and sensitivity analyses should be used to assess the impact of these choices.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Timetree Calibration

Research Reagent	Function	Application Context
16S/18S rRNA Genes	Molecular chronometer for deep divergences	Universal phylogenetic framework
Concatenated Protein Sets	Multi-gene phylogenetic inference	Genome-scale phylogeny construction
Composition Vector Methods	Alignment-free whole genome comparison	Prokaryote phylogeny with HGT
Fossilized Birth-Death Model	Integrated fossil and molecular dating	Bayesian divergence time estimation
Geochemical Biosignatures	Metabolic process calibration	Deep-time prokaryote evolution

Calibration Uncertainty Framework: This diagram illustrates the major sources of uncertainty in timetree calibration and corresponding mitigation strategies for producing more robust divergence time estimates.

Best Practices and Future Directions

Recommendations for Robust Calibration

Based on current research, several best practices emerge for implementing robust calibration in timetree construction:

• Use Multiple Independent Calibrations: Incorporating multiple calibration points from different sources and across the tree reduces the influence of any single potentially erroneous calibration and improves overall precision.

• Explicitly Model Fossil Age Uncertainty: Rather than fixing fossil ages to point estimates, explicitly model the full range of stratigraphic uncertainty to produce more accurate confidence intervals on divergence times.

• Inspect Effective Time Priors: The joint time prior used by Bayesian dating programs should be inspected before analysis, as truncation and interaction among calibration points can produce effective priors that differ substantially from user-specified distributions.

• Consider Taxon-Specific Molecular Markers: For prokaryote phylogeny, conserved signature indels and conserved signature proteins provide valuable phylogenetic markers that are less prone to horizontal gene transfer and can help establish robust phylogenetic frameworks.

• Integrate Paleontological Expertise: Close collaboration with paleontologists ensures proper interpretation of fossil evidence, including phylogenetic placement, morphological interpretation, and stratigraphic context.

Emerging Methodological Developments

The field of timetree calibration continues to evolve with several promising developments:

• Total Evidence Dating: Approaches that combine morphological data from fossils and molecular data from extant taxa in a single simultaneous analysis show promise for more integrated dating, though challenges remain in modeling morphological evolution.

• Morphological Clock Models: The development of clock-like models for morphological character evolution analogous to molecular clock models may improve our ability to estimate divergence times directly from morphological data.

• Genome-Scale Paleontology: Advances in sequencing ancient DNA and even ancient proteins are expanding the temporal window for molecular data, potentially providing direct rather than inferred calibration points for more recent divergences.

• Improved Geological Calibrations: Refinements in geochronology and biogeographic modeling are providing more precise and accurate geological calibration points, particularly for Cenozoic divergences.

As these methods mature and genomic data continue to accumulate, the integration of fossil evidence and geological events will remain fundamental to constructing accurate timetrees across the tree of life, from the most recent divergences to the deepest branches connecting the domains of life. For prokaryotes specifically, the creative use of geochemical and biomarker evidence, combined with sophisticated molecular clock models on genome-scale data, offers the best path forward for unraveling the deep history of microbial evolution.

This technical guide examines the critical role of molecular chronometers in tracking genetic resources within the framework of Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) agreements. As mandated by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources requires robust systems for monitoring these resources throughout the research and development pipeline. Molecular chronometers—genetic markers with predictable mutation rates—provide powerful tools for identifying and tracking genetic resources, thereby enabling compliance with ABS obligations such as Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT). This paper explores the integration of these molecular tools with digital tracking technologies to create transparent and effective monitoring systems essential for supporting the Nagoya Protocol's implementation and fostering trust between resource providers and users.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in 1992 and now with 192 Parties, establishes three principal objectives: conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources [61]. Article 15 of the CBD specifically stipulates that access to genetic resources is subject to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) of the country of origin and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) regarding benefit-sharing [61]. The subsequent Nagoya Protocol further operationalizes these principles by creating a transparent legal framework for their implementation [62].

A fundamental challenge in implementing ABS agreements lies in monitoring and tracking genetic resources once they leave the provider country and enter various research and development pathways [61]. Genetic resources have evolved from physical biological samples to include extracted DNA, sequence data, and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) stored in digital databases [61] [63]. These derived forms are readily copied, mobile, and globally accessible, creating complex tracking scenarios that may not have been anticipated in original agreements [61].

Table: Evolution of Genetic Resource Utilization

Era	Primary Forms	Tracking Challenges
Pre-genomic	Whole organisms, physical specimens	Material transfer, physical documentation
Genomic	Extracted DNA, cultured samples	Digital documentation, preliminary sequence data
Contemporary	Sequence data, MAGs, synthetic constructs	Digital replication, global distribution, unintended uses

Molecular chronometers address these challenges by providing verifiable identification markers that persist through various stages of research and development. When integrated with digital tracking systems, they create a powerful mechanism for maintaining the provenance of genetic resources through complex value chains.

Molecular Chronometers: Fundamental Concepts and Classification

Molecular chronometers are genetic sequences with relatively constant evolutionary rates that serve as reference points for phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic classification. Their predictable mutation patterns allow researchers to reconstruct evolutionary relationships and establish identifiable signatures for specific genetic resources.

Theoretical Basis and Historical Development

The conceptual foundation for molecular chronometers was established by Zuckerkandl and Pauling, who proposed that informational macromolecules could act as molecular clocks to infer evolutionary relationships [6]. This insight prompted a shift from phenotype-based classification to genotype-based phylogenetic frameworks for microorganisms [6]. Woese's pioneering work with small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S/18S rRNA) demonstrated the practical application of this approach, leading to the revolutionary discovery of Archaea as a distinct domain of life [6].

The development of molecular chronometers has progressed through distinct phases:

• Phenotypic Era: Classification based on morphological, biochemical, and physiological characteristics
• Single Gene Era: Focus on conserved marker genes like 16S rRNA
• Genomic Era: Utilization of whole-genome sequences and large gene sets

This evolution has been driven by advances in DNA sequencing technologies and computational biology, enabling increasingly precise phylogenetic resolution [6].

Classification of Molecular Chronometers

Molecular chronometers can be categorized based on their evolutionary rate, conservation level, and taxonomic resolution:

Table: Classification of Common Molecular Chronometers in Prokaryotic Systematics

Marker Type	Evolutionary Rate	Taxonomic Resolution	Primary Applications
16S rRNA	Very slow	Domain to genus	Broad phylogenetic placement, initial identification
23S rRNA	Slow	Domain to species	Complementary to 16S with similar resolution
Protein-coding genes (rpoB, gyrB)	Moderate	Genus to species	Species differentiation, enhanced resolution
Housekeeping genes (tuf, hsp65)	Variable	Species to strain	Species discrimination, phylogenetic analysis
Whole-genome sequences	Comprehensive	All taxonomic levels	Highest resolution, reference standard

Key Molecular Markers in Prokaryotic Systematics

Ribosomal RNA Genes

The 16S ribosomal RNA gene has served as the cornerstone of microbial phylogenetics for decades due to its high conservation and universal distribution [6]. Its structure includes variable regions that provide phylogenetic signals at different taxonomic levels, making it suitable for broad classification from domain to genus [6]. However, its high conservation also limits its resolution for distinguishing closely related species, prompting the need for supplementary markers [6] [8].

The 23S rRNA gene shares similar characteristics with 16S rRNA but offers a larger sequence space for analysis. Studies have confirmed its utility as a phylogenetic marker, with some evidence suggesting it may provide comparable or superior resolution to 16S rRNA in certain applications [64].

Protein-Coding Genes

Protein-coding genes often provide enhanced phylogenetic resolution due to their more rapid evolutionary rates compared to rRNA genes:

• rpoB: Encodes the β-subunit of RNA polymerase, useful for differentiating Mycobacterium species [8]
• gyrB: Encodes the B-subunit of DNA gyrase, provides resolution at species level
• tuf: Encodes elongation factor Tu, demonstrates strong discriminatory power for mycobacterial species [8]
• hsp65: Encodes a 65-kDa heat shock protein, widely used for Mycobacterium species identification [8]
• recA: Encodes a DNA repair protein, moderate evolutionary rate

A recent study comparing hsp65 and tuf genes for Mycobacterium species identification in Northeastern Iran found that both markers provided effective phylogenetic resolution, with the tuf gene demonstrating superior discriminatory power for distinct mycobacterial species [8]. The study analyzed 30 clinical isolates and found that the tuf gene's phylogenetic profile closely aligned with that of the hsp65 gene, qualifying it as a first-line genomic marker for phylogenetic analysis [8].

Whole-Genome Approaches

Whole-genome sequencing represents the ultimate molecular chronometer, providing complete genetic information for analysis. Genome-based classification methods include:

• Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI): Measures nucleotide identity across conserved genomic regions [64]
• Average Amino Acid Identity (AAI): Computes amino acid identity of shared genes [64]
• Digital DNA-DNA Hybridization (dDDH): Computational estimation of DNA relatedness
• Core Genome Phylogenomics: Phylogenetic analysis based on conserved genes across taxa

Studies have demonstrated that AAI represents a robust measure of genetic and evolutionary relatedness between strains, showing strong correlation with DNA-DNA reassociation values [64]. This approach facilitates a genome-based taxonomy that can significantly improve the consistency and predictive power of prokaryotic classification systems [64].

Experimental Protocols for Molecular Chronometer Analysis

DNA Extraction and Quality Control

Protocol for Microbial Genomic DNA Extraction

• Sample Preparation: Cultivate isolates on appropriate medium (e.g., Löwenstein-Jensen for mycobacteria)
• Cell Lysis: Use enzymatic (lysozyme) and chemical (SDS) lysis buffers
• DNA Purification: Phenol-chloroform extraction or commercial kit-based methods
• Quality Assessment: Measure DNA concentration and purity (A260/A280 ratio ~1.8)
• Integrity Check: Agarose gel electrophoresis to confirm high molecular weight DNA

For clinical samples, preliminary processing may include decontamination steps such as the N-acetyl-L-cysteine-sodium hydroxide (NALC-NaOH) method to remove contaminants while preserving target organisms [8].

PCR Amplification of Target Genes

Standard Protocol for Molecular Chronometer Amplification

• Primer Design: Select primers targeting conserved regions of chosen markers
• Reaction Setup:
  • Template DNA: 10-100 ng
  • Primers: 0.2-0.5 μM each
  • dNTPs: 200 μM each
  • PCR buffer: 1X with MgCl₂ (1.5-2.5 mM)
  • DNA polymerase: 0.5-1 unit
• Thermal Cycling Conditions:
  • Initial denaturation: 95°C for 2-5 minutes
  • Amplification (30-35 cycles):
    • Denaturation: 95°C for 30 seconds
    • Annealing: 55-65°C (marker-dependent) for 30 seconds
    • Extension: 72°C for 1 minute/kb
  • Final extension: 72°C for 5-10 minutes
• Amplification Verification: Agarose gel electrophoresis of PCR products

For the tuf gene in Mycobacterium species, successful amplification typically yields a 741 bp product, while hsp65 amplification produces a 441 bp fragment [8].

Phylogenetic Analysis Workflow

Comprehensive Protocol for Phylogenetic Reconstruction

• Sequence Alignment:

  • Use alignment algorithms (ClustalW, MUSCLE, MAFFT)
  • Verify alignment quality and trim ends
  • For genome-based approaches, identify core gene sets

• Evolutionary Model Selection:

  • Determine best-fitting substitution model (Jukes-Cantor, Kimura, GTR)
  • Assess model fit using AIC/BIC criteria
  • Account for rate heterogeneity among sites

• Tree Construction:

  • Apply distance-based methods (Neighbor-Joining) for preliminary analysis
  • Implement maximum likelihood for robust phylogenetic inference
  • Utilize Bayesian methods for probability support
  • Validate with bootstrap analysis (1000 replicates recommended)

• Tree Interpretation:

  • Identify monophyletic groups with strong support (bootstrap >70%)
  • Compare with reference sequences from databases
  • Annotate with taxonomic information

The study on Mycobacterium species in Northeastern Iran employed the Neighbor-Joining method with bootstrap validation (1000 replicates) to infer evolutionary history, considering bootstrap values above 70% as indicative of well-supported branches [8].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table: Essential Research Reagents for Molecular Chronometer Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality genomic DNA	Select based on sample type (cultured cells, environmental samples)
PCR Master Mix	Amplification of target genes	Optimize Mg²⁺ concentration for specific markers
Species-Specific Primers	Targeted amplification of molecular markers	Design for conserved regions of chosen chronometers
Agarose	Electrophoretic separation of DNA fragments	Concentration dependent on expected product size
Sequencing Reagents	Determination of nucleotide sequences	Sanger or next-generation sequencing platforms
DNA Size Standards	Fragment size determination	Essential for accurate PCR product verification
Positive Control DNA	Protocol validation	Known sequences from reference strains
Alignment Software	Sequence comparison and analysis	MUSCLE, MAFFT, ClustalW
Phylogenetic Packages	Tree construction and visualization	MEGA X, PHYLIP, RAxML

Integration with ABS Tracking Systems

DNA-Based Identification for Tracking

Molecular chronometers provide the technical foundation for tracking genetic resources by establishing verifiable genetic identities that persist through various research stages. The CBD has recognized the importance of "recent developments in methods to identify genetic resources directly based on DNA sequences" as a crucial element for effective monitoring systems [61].

DNA-based tracking operates through several mechanisms:

• Source Verification: Genetic signatures confirm the provenance of biological materials
• Lineage Tracking: Phylogenetic relationships establish connections between derived products
• Compliance Monitoring: Genetic markers verify adherence to ABS agreements regarding resource utilization

The integration of molecular chronometers with digital sequence information creates particularly powerful tracking tools, as sequence data can be permanently associated with ABS documentation [61].

Persistent Identifier Systems

Effective tracking requires associating genetic resources with persistent global unique identifiers (GUIDs) that link to digital documentation including PIC, MAT, and Certificates of Origin [61]. These systems create unambiguous associations between physical biological materials, their digital sequence representations, and corresponding ABS obligations.

Key considerations for implementing persistent identifier systems include:

• Scalability: Accommodating exponentially increasing genomic data
• Interoperability: Linking across different databases and tracking platforms
• Persistence: Maintaining identifier resolution over extended timeframes
• Access Control: Managing sensitive data while ensuring necessary transparency

The ABS Clearing-House, established under the Nagoya Protocol, provides a platform for exchanging information on access and benefit-sharing, serving as a key tool for enhancing legal certainty and transparency [62].

Technical Implementation Framework

A comprehensive tracking framework for genetic resources incorporates multiple components:

• Molecular Identification Layer: DNA-based authentication using appropriate chronometers
• Data Standardization Layer: Consistent metadata formatting and annotation
• Identifier Layer: Persistent GUID assignment and resolution
• Documentation Layer: Digital management of ABS agreements
• Tracking Layer: Monitoring utilization along development pipelines
• Compliance Layer: Verification of benefit-sharing obligations

This integrated approach addresses the particular concern of provider countries regarding what happens to genetic resources after they leave the provider country and enter various forms of utilization [61].

Future Directions and Challenges

Technological Advancements

Several emerging technologies will influence the future application of molecular chronometers in ABS tracking:

• Portable Sequencing Devices: Enable in-field verification of genetic resources
• Blockchain Technologies: Create immutable records of resource transfers and utilization
• Advanced Cryptography: Facilitate secure sharing of sensitive genetic information
• Machine Learning Algorithms: Enhance pattern recognition in large-scale genomic datasets

These technologies must be developed with consideration for equitable access and capacity building in resource-provider countries to prevent widening technological divides.

Standardization and Governance

Critical challenges remain in standardizing practices across jurisdictions and research communities:

• Marker Selection: Establishing standard chronometer panels for different taxonomic groups
• Data Quality: Implementing quality thresholds for tracking purposes
• Metadata Requirements: Defining essential ABS-related metadata fields
• Interoperability: Ensuring compatibility between different tracking platforms

The SeqCode initiative represents progress in standardizing nomenclature for uncultivated prokaryotes described from sequence data, including genome quality criteria that support reliable identification [63].

Ethical and Equity Considerations

Technical solutions for tracking must be implemented within frameworks that address fundamental ethical considerations:

• Capacity Asymmetry: Balancing technological capabilities between provider and user countries
• Traditional Knowledge: Associating genetic resources with indigenous and local community knowledge
• Data Sovereignty: Respecting national rights over genetic resource information
• Open Science: Reconciling transparency with legitimate protection of interests

Molecular chronometers will continue to play an essential role in the evolving implementation of ABS frameworks, providing the technical foundation for transparent and equitable benefit-sharing from the utilization of genetic resources. As DNA sequencing technologies advance and computational capabilities expand, these tools will enable increasingly sophisticated tracking systems that support both scientific innovation and fair resource governance.

The conceptual framework of pharmacophylogeny—elucidating the intricate nexus between plant phylogeny, phytochemical composition, and medicinal efficacy—is revolutionizing plant-based drug discovery [65]. This approach leverages a fundamental biological principle: phylogenetically proximate taxa often share conserved metabolic pathways and bioactivities, creating a predictive scaffold for bioprospecting [65]. The emergence of pharmacophylomics, which integrates phylogenomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics, empowers researchers to decode complex biosynthetic pathways, forecast therapeutic utilities, and significantly accelerate natural product research and development [65]. This guide details the technical methodologies and applications of this integrated approach within modern drug discovery, with particular relevance to the use of molecular chronometers in phylogenetic classification.

Core Principles and Molecular Basis

The theoretical underpinning of phylogeny-driven discovery rests on three established pillars [65]:

• Evolution-Chemodiversity Links: Closely related species share conserved biosynthetic pathways due to common ancestry. This enables predictive metabolite discovery, as illustrated by the distribution of isoquinoline alkaloids like palmatine across Ranunculales or terpenoids in closely related Paris species [65].
• Omics-Driven Validation: The integration of genomics, metabolomics, and network pharmacology is crucial for deciphering therapeutic mechanisms and verifying taxonomic fidelity. This multi-layered validation moves beyond correlation to establish causative links.
• Sustainable Utilization: Phylogenomic-guided resource substitution (e.g., identifying palmatine-rich alternatives) helps mitigate the overharvesting of threatened medicinal species, aligning drug discovery with conservation goals [65].

Molecular chronometers, such as the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA), have been pioneers in constructing an evolutionary framework for microbial classification [6]. The high sequence conservation of these genes, interspersed with variable regions, makes them ideal molecular clocks for inferring deep and shallow evolutionary relationships [6]. In modern pharmacophylomics, this concept is extended to a genome-based classification framework. Using a subset of conserved, vertically inherited genes to build phylogenetic trees via supermatrix or supertree approaches provides a robust scaffold upon which chemodiversity can be mapped, offering greater resolution than single-gene analyses [6].

Technical Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Phylogenomic Analysis and Taxon Selection

Objective: To reconstruct a robust phylogenetic framework for target taxa and identify closely related lineages for comparative metabolomic analysis.

Protocol:

• DNA Extraction and Sequencing: Extract high-quality genomic DNA from plant tissue (e.g., roots, leaves) using established methods like the CTAB protocol [66]. For the Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 (ITS2) region, use primers ITS2-F (5'-ATGCGATACTTGGTGTGAAT-3') and ITS3-R (5'-GACGCTTCTCCAGACTACAAT-3') for PCR amplification [66].
• Sequence Alignment and Phylogeny Reconstruction: Align obtained sequences with homologous sequences from related species downloaded from genomic databases (e.g., GenBank) using tools like MEGA6 with ClustalW. Construct a phylogenetic tree (e.g., a Neighbor-Joining tree) using a model like Kimura-2-Parameter, with bootstrap analysis (e.g., 1,000 replicates) to assess node support [66].
• Identification of "Hot Nodes": Identify clades ("hot nodes") of closely related species that are phylogenetically proximate to taxa with known ethnomedicinal uses or bioactivities, as demonstrated in Fabaceae for phytoestrogen-rich lineages [65].

Widely Targeted Metabolomic Profiling

Objective: To comprehensively identify and quantify the metabolite composition in the selected taxa.

Protocol:

• Sample Preparation: Freeze-dry plant samples and pulverize them to a fine powder. Extract metabolites from ~50 mg of powder using 1.2 mL of 70% methanol, vortexing repeatedly, followed by centrifugation and filtration [66].
• UPLC-MS/MS Analysis: Analyze the extracts using an UPLC-ESI-MS/MS system.
  • UPLC Conditions: Use an Agilent SB-C18 column (1.8 µm, 2.1 mm × 100 mm). The mobile phase should consist of solvent A (pure water with 0.1% formic acid) and solvent B (e.g., acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid) with a gradient elution [66].
  • MS Conditions: Operate the mass spectrometer in both positive and negative ionization modes for broad metabolite detection. Use multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) for highly sensitive and selective quantification.
• Metabolite Identification and Quantification: Identify metabolites by comparing their MS/MS spectra and retention times to standard compound libraries. Perform relative or absolute quantification based on peak areas.

Network Pharmacology and Target Prediction

Objective: To predict the putative protein targets and therapeutic mechanisms of the identified metabolites.

Protocol:

• Target Screening: For metabolites of interest (e.g., those abundant in active extracts or unique to a "hot node"), use public databases (e.g., SwissTargetPrediction, STITCH) to predict potential protein targets.
• Network Construction: Construct a compound-target network using visualization software (e.g., Cytoscape). Input nodes for compounds and targets, with edges representing interactions.
• Enrichment Analysis: Subject the list of predicted target proteins to gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis to identify biological processes and signaling pathways significantly modulated by the metabolites.

Figure 1: Integrated workflow for pharmacophylomics, combining phylogenomics, metabolomics, and network pharmacology to identify novel metabolites and drug targets.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The data generated from these methodologies must be synthesized for clear interpretation. The table below summarizes key quantitative data and bioactivity from a representative study on Persicaria runcinata var. sinensis [66].

Table 1: Summary of Metabolomics and Network Pharmacology Results from a Study of Persicaria runcinata var. sinensis [66]

Analysis Type	Key Metric	Result / Finding	Implication for Drug Discovery
Widely Targeted Metabolomics	Total Metabolites Detected	716 metabolites	Reveals extensive chemodiversity as a basis for bioprospecting.
	Key Metabolite Classes Identified	Catechin, gallic acid derivatives, dibutyl phthalate, indole alkaloids	Prioritizes anti-inflammatory and antioxidant compounds for arthritis.
Network Pharmacology	Key Targets & Pathways	TNF, IL-6, MAPK, NF-κB signaling pathways	Suggests a multi-target mechanism of action against inflammation.
Molecular Identification	DNA Barcode Region	ITS2 sequence	Enables authentic sourcing and prevents adulteration of herbal material.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Pharmacophylomics Studies

Item / Reagent	Function / Application	Example from Literature
CTAB Lysis Buffer	DNA extraction from polysaccharide-rich plant tissues.	Used for extracting plant genomic DNA for ITS2 barcoding [66].
ITS2-F/ITS3-R Primers	PCR amplification of the ITS2 barcode region for phylogenetic analysis.	Primer pair for amplifying the ITS2 region in P. runcinata var. sinensis [66].
UPLC-MS/MS System	High-resolution separation (UPLC) and sensitive detection/quantification (MS/MS) of metabolites.	Employed for widely targeted metabolomic profiling of plant extracts [66].
C18 Reverse-Phase Column	Chromatographic separation of complex metabolite mixtures.	Agilent SB-C18 column used in UPLC analysis [66].
Metabolite Standard Libraries	Identification of metabolites by matching MS/MS spectra and retention times.	Essential for annotating the 716 metabolites detected in P. runcinata var. sinensis [66].
Network Analysis Software	Visualization and analysis of compound-target-pathway networks.	Tools like Cytoscape are used to integrate metabolomic and pharmacological data [65].

Signaling Pathways and Mechanistic Insights

Network pharmacology analyses often reveal that plant metabolites exert their effects by modulating key inflammatory and stress-response pathways. A common finding is the synergistic regulation of the NF-κB and MAPK signaling pathways by flavonoid glycosides like schaftoside, as identified in Clinacanthus nutans [65].

Figure 2: Mechanism of anti-inflammatory metabolites. Flavonoids like schaftoside inhibit the NF-κB and MAPK signaling pathways, reducing the expression of pro-inflammatory genes [65].

Future Directions and Concluding Remarks

The field of pharmacophylogeny is rapidly advancing with several key future trajectories [65]:

• Horizontal Expansion: Exploring uncharted taxonomic groups (e.g., algae, lichens) and leveraging microbial-phytochemical interactions to tap into novel biosynthetic pathways.
• Vertical Integration via Synthetic Biology: Coupling phylogenomic predictions with synthetic biology to engineer high-yield production of valuable metabolites (e.g., in microbes or plant cell cultures).
• AI-Driven Predictive Modeling: Training neural networks on large-scale phylogenetic and chemotaxonomic matrices to forecast novel bioactive lineages, thus prioritizing lab efforts.
• Climate Resilience and Conservation: Characterizing metabolomic plasticity in medicinal plants under environmental stress and combining IUCN Red List assessments with pharmacophylogenetic hotspots to establish conservation priorities.

In conclusion, pharmacophylogeny and pharmacophylomics offer a robust, ethically grounded scaffold for modern drug discovery. By systematically leveraging evolutionary relationships to predict and validate chemodiversity and bioactivity, this approach efficiently bridges the gap between traditional ethnomedicine, biodiversity conservation, and cutting-edge therapeutic development.

Navigating Challenges: Calibration, Rate Variation, and Analytical Pitfalls

The molecular clock hypothesis, proposing that substitutions in genetic sequences accumulate at a roughly constant rate over time, provides a foundational principle for estimating evolutionary timescales [67]. However, this strict clock assumption is frequently violated in empirical studies across the tree of life, giving rise to the critical challenge of rate heterogeneity—the phenomenon where evolutionary rates vary substantially among lineages, sites, and genes [68] [69]. For researchers investigating prokaryotic evolution, where fossil calibrations are exceptionally scarce, accurately modeling rate variation is particularly crucial for obtaining reliable divergence time estimates [26] [70]. This technical guide examines the core frameworks developed to address this complexity: autocorrelated and uncorrelated clock models. We explore their biological motivations, statistical implementations, and practical applications within prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, providing methodologies and analytical tools to enhance chronological inference in microbial research.

Core Concepts: Understanding Clock Models

The Strict Clock and Its Limitations

The strict molecular clock model assumes a homogeneous substitution rate (μ) across all lineages in a phylogeny [69]. While computationally straightforward, this assumption is often biologically unrealistic, as rates of molecular evolution can vary substantially among lineages due to factors such as differences in generation time, metabolic rate, DNA repair efficiency, and population size [68] [67]. The inability of the strict clock to account for this rate heterogeneity can lead to significantly biased estimates of divergence times, particularly in datasets encompassing distantly related taxa.

Relaxed Clock Approaches: A Framework for Rate Variation

Relaxed molecular clock models were developed to accommodate lineage-specific rate variation without requiring a separate rate parameter for each branch. These approaches generally fall into two broad categories:

• Autocorrelated Clock Models: Substitution rates in descendant lineages are correlated with those of their ancestors.
• Uncorrelated Clock Models: Substitution rates are drawn independently from an underlying parametric distribution.

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of Relaxed Clock Model Categories

Feature	Autocorrelated Models	Uncorrelated Models
Core Assumption	Rate in a lineage is correlated with its ancestral rate	Rates among lineages are independent
Biological Justification	Heritable traits affecting rate (e.g., generation time, metabolic rate) [68]	Rate influenced by non-heritable factors or abrupt changes
Rate Change Pattern	Gradual, evolution-like rate change along lineages	Sudden, discrete rate shifts between lineages
Parameterization	Rates often modeled as evolving under stochastic process (e.g., CIR process) [68]	Rates drawn independently from distribution (e.g., lognormal, exponential) [71] [67]
Computational Demand	Generally higher due to correlated parameters	Lower due to parameter independence

Autocorrelated Clock Models

Biological Motivation and Theoretical Foundation

Autocorrelated clock models are grounded in the premise that traits influencing substitution rates—including generation time, metabolic rate, and DNA repair efficiency—are themselves heritable characteristics [68]. Consequently, closely related lineages are expected to share similar traits and, therefore, similar substitution rates, creating a pattern of rate autocorrelation across the phylogeny. This assumption is supported by observations in certain mammalian lineages where substitution rates correlate with body size and metabolic rate [68]. The strength of this autocorrelation may vary across taxonomic scales, potentially being strongest at intermediate phylogenetic levels [68].

Implementation and Statistical Frameworks

Autocorrelated models employ various mathematical approaches to describe how rates change along evolutionary lineages:

• Cox-Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) Process: This stochastic process models rate evolution with desirable statistical properties, where the mean rate at time t follows: E[R(t)] = R(0)e^(-θt) + μ(1 - e^(-θt)), with μ representing the stationary mean rate and θ determining the speed of autocorrelation decay [68].
• Penalized Likelihood: This approach implements a roughness penalty that minimizes rate changes between adjacent branches, effectively enforcing autocorrelation [71].
• Bayesian Autocorrelated Models: These frameworks incorporate prior distributions that assume gradual rate change between ancestral and descendant lineages [67].

Practical Applications and Limitations

Autocorrelated models have been applied across diverse taxonomic groups, from viral sequences to kingdom-level comparisons [68]. However, their application to prokaryotic systems requires careful consideration. These models may be particularly appropriate for analyzing closely related bacterial lineages where shared life history traits could maintain rate autocorrelation. A significant limitation emerges when analyzing distantly related prokaryotic taxa, where autocorrelation in life-history traits inevitably breaks down [68]. Furthermore, these models demonstrate reduced effectiveness with small datasets and sparse taxon sampling [68].

Uncorrelated and Local Clock Models

Theoretical Foundation and Biological Rationale

Uncorrelated relaxed clock models operate under the premise that substitution rates on adjacent branches represent independent draws from an underlying parametric distribution, such as lognormal or exponential [71] [67]. This approach does not assume gradual rate change and can accommodate sudden rate shifts, which may occur due to non-heritable factors or major evolutionary transitions. The local clock model represents a specialized form wherein specific clades evolve under distinct rates, creating a model with multiple "strict clocks" operating in different phylogenetic regions [67].

Model Implementation and Variations

• Discrete Clock Models: These approaches assign lineages to a limited number of rate categories without assuming autocorrelation, allowing non-adjacent lineages to share rate classes [71].
• Random Local Clocks: Bayesian methods can co-estimate phylogeny alongside the number and placement of local clocks directly from sequence data [67].
• Flexible Local Clock (FLC): This hybrid model allows local clocks to be implemented as either strict clocks or relaxed clocks, combining features of both approaches [67].

Table 2: Methodological Approaches for Implementing Clock Models

Method	Core Approach	Clock Type	Key Features
Penalized Likelihood	Minimizes rate changes between branches with roughness penalty [71]	Autocorrelated	Non-parametric; user-defined penalty parameter
CIR Process	Models rate evolution as stochastic process [68]	Autocorrelated	Bayesian framework; explicitly models rate trajectory
Discrete Clock	Assigns branches to limited rate categories [71]	Uncorrelated	Maximum likelihood implementation; fixed number of rates
Uncorrelated Lognormal	Rates drawn independently from lognormal distribution [67]	Uncorrelated	Bayesian implementation; rates constrained to distribution
Flexible Local Clock	Combines local and relaxed clock features [67]	Hybrid	Allows different clock types in different tree regions

Methodological Protocols for Prokaryotic Applications

Experimental Design and Data Preparation

For prokaryotic phylogenetic studies, careful data selection and preparation are essential:

• Gene Selection: Prioritize molecular markers with appropriate evolutionary rates for your taxonomic scale. The 16S rRNA gene remains widely used for broad phylogenetic classification, though its functional conservation may limit resolution for recently diverged lineages [26] [13].
• Genome-Wide Approaches: For improved resolution, consider genome-scale analyses using conserved single-copy genes or whole-genome sequences [26].
• Sequence Alignment: Implement rigorous multiple sequence alignment using specialized tools for prokaryotic sequences (e.g., MAFFT, MUSCLE), followed by careful manual inspection.
• Taxon Sampling: Strategic sampling across taxonomic groups of interest helps mitigate potential artifacts from long-branch attraction.

Model Selection and Implementation Protocol

• Model Testing: Compare autocorrelated and uncorrelated models using statistical criteria such as AICc (Akaike Information Criterion with correction) for maximum likelihood approaches [71] or Bayes factors for Bayesian methods [68].
• Detection of Autocorrelation: In Bayesian frameworks, assess rate autocorrelation by comparing posterior and prior distributions of rate covariance in neighbouring branches [68].
• Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluate the impact of clock model choice on key parameters, particularly divergence time estimates.

Computational Implementation Workflow

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Molecular Clock Analysis in Prokaryotes

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function and Application
Sequence Databases	SILVA [26], RDP [26], Greengenes [26]	Curated 16S rRNA databases for phylogenetic placement
Genomic Databases	GTDB [26], NCBI Taxonomy [26], JGI IMG [26]	Genome-based taxonomic frameworks and reference trees
Phylogenetic Software	BEAST2 [67], Physher [71]	Bayesian and ML implementations of clock models
Nomenclatural Resources	LPSN [26], IJSEM [26]	Validation of taxonomic nomenclature
Calibration Resources	Microbial fossil records, biogeochemical events	Temporal calibration points for divergence time estimation

Addressing rate heterogeneity through appropriate clock model selection remains fundamental to advancing prokaryotic phylogenetic classification. The choice between autocorrelated and uncorrelated approaches should be guided by biological rationale, taxonomic scale, and statistical evidence rather than computational convenience. For prokaryotic systems, where heritable traits affecting substitution rates may operate differently than in multicellular organisms, continued method development is essential. Emerging approaches that combine features of both model classes, such as flexible local clocks, offer promising avenues for more biologically realistic molecular dating. Furthermore, the integration of genomic-scale data with improved understanding of microbial physiology and evolution will continue to refine our approaches to addressing rate heterogeneity, ultimately leading to more accurate reconstructions of prokaryotic evolutionary history.

The reconstruction of prokaryotic evolutionary history is fundamentally constrained by a sparse and often ambiguous fossil record. This scarcity poses a significant calibration hurdle for molecular chronometers—genetic sequences used as evolutionary clocks. This technical review examines the current state of the prokaryotic fossil evidence, detailing the methodologies employed to identify and interpret these ancient biosignatures. Furthermore, it explores the critical integration of this paleontological data with genome-based phylogenetic frameworks to calibrate models of microbial diversification through deep time. The synthesis of these disparate lines of evidence is essential for constructing a robust, time-scaled tree of prokaryotic life.

Molecular chronometers have revolutionized our understanding of prokaryotic evolution, allowing inferences far beyond the reach of the physical fossil record. These tools, which rely on the assumption of a relatively constant rate of genetic change over time, require calibration points from the geological record to translate genetic distances into absolute time. The central challenge in prokaryotic phylogenetics is the severe scarcity of these calibration points. Unlike animals with their mineralized skeletons, Bacteria and Archaea have left behind a fossil record that is morphologically simple, chemically complex, and often difficult to interpret. Overcoming this "calibration hurdle" is a prerequisite for transforming abstract phylogenetic trees into a historical narrative of microbial evolution on Earth. This guide details the available fossil evidence, the experimental protocols for its analysis, and its application to the calibration of molecular clocks within the context of modern genome-based classification schemes [6].

The direct evidence for early life comes primarily from three sources: stromatolites, microfossils, and chemical biomarkers. The following sections provide a detailed examination of these archives, with quantitative data summarized in Table 1.

Stromatolites

Stromatolites are laminated sedimentary structures formed by the trapping, binding, and precipitation of minerals by microbial communities, predominantly cyanobacteria. While not the microbes themselves, they provide indirect evidence of their presence and metabolic activities. The Archaean eon (4,000 to 2,500 million years ago) contains numerous reported occurrences, with the oldest compelling examples dating back to approximately 3,496 million years in the Dresser Formation of Australia [72]. These early biogenic structures are typically domical or stratiform, becoming more morphologically diverse (including conical and columnar forms) in later Archaean deposits like the ~2,723 million-year-old Tumbiana Formation [72]. It is critical to note that abiotic processes can produce similar structures, necessitating rigorous morphological and geochemical analyses to confirm a biological origin.

Microfossils

Organic microfossils represent the preserved cellular remains of prokaryotes and early eukaryotes. The record of such fossils spans billions of years, though confirmed prokaryotic microfossils are rare. The compilation of Archaean microfossils reveals reports of 40 morphotypes from 14 geological units [72]. These finds are often contentious, as non-biological artefacts can mimic simple cellular morphology. More recently, the study of "small carbonaceous fossils" (SCFs) has proven powerful for detecting the remains of non-biomineralizing organisms in younger (Tonian-Cambrian) rocks, revealing a unidirectional signal of increasing eukaryotic and eventually metazoan complexity [73]. This palynological technique, which involves dissolving sedimentary rocks in acid to concentrate organic residues, has the potential to be applied to older rocks to search for more elusive prokaryotic remains, though its success in the pre-Tonian is limited.

Table 1: Summary of Key Archaean Fossil Evidence for Prokaryotic Life

Evidence Type	Geologic Unit (Example)	Approximate Age (Million Years)	Description & Significance	Country
Stromatolites	Dresser Formation, Warrawoona Group	3496	Domical structures; among the oldest widely accepted evidence of microbial life.	Australia [72]
	Strelley Pool Chert, Kelly Group	3388	Conical stromatolites; provides strong morphological evidence for microbial mat communities.	Australia [72]
	Insuzi Group, Pongola Supergroup	2985	Diverse morphologies; indicates established and varied microbial ecosystems.	South Africa [72]
Microfossils	Various Formations	3460 - 2500	40 reported morphotypes across 14 units; putative cellular remains, though often debated.	Australia, South Africa [72]

Methodologies for Analyzing Prokaryotic Fossils

Experimental Protocol for Stromatolite Analysis

Confirming the biogenicity of putative stromatolites requires a multi-pronged approach.

• Field Sampling & Macroscopic Analysis: Document the stratigraphic context and three-dimensional morphology in situ. Look for complexities such as wrinkly, crinkly, or tufted laminations and evidence of doming or branching that are difficult to explain by abiotic precipitation.
• Petrographic Thin Sectioning:
  • Cut the rock sample into slices approximately 30-100 micrometers thick.
  • Mount the slice onto a glass slide and polish until it is transparent.
  • Analyze under an optical microscope to observe the internal microstructure.
• Microscopic Analysis:
  • Identify microfabric features characteristic of microbial activity, such as clotted, peloidal, or spongiform textures, and the presence of trapped and bound detrital grains.
  • Look for evidence of in situ microfossils within the laminae.
• Geochemical Analysis (Isotopes):
  • Using a micro-drill, extract powder from individual laminae.
  • Analyze the carbon isotope composition (δ13C) of the carbonate and/or associated organic kerogen. Biogenic processes typically fractionate carbon, leading to a depletion of 13C in organic matter (δ13C values typically between -20‰ and -35‰ relative to the Pee Dee Belemnite standard).

Experimental Protocol for Organic Microfossil (Palynological) Analysis

This method is used to extract acid-resistant organic-walled microfossils from sedimentary rocks.

• Sample Preparation:
  • Crush the rock sample to a coarse powder (~1 cm3 chunks).
  • To remove carbonate minerals, treat with hydrochloric acid (HCl, 10-30% concentration) in a fume hood until effervescence ceases.
  • To remove silicate minerals, carefully treat with hydrofluoric acid (HF, 40-48% concentration) in a dedicated HF fume hood. This step requires extreme caution, proper PPE, and trained personnel.
  • Rinse the residual organic concentrate repeatedly with distilled water until a neutral pH is achieved.
• Microfossil Concentration:
  • Separate the organic matter from mineral residues using density separation with a heavy liquid like zinc bromide (ZnBr2).
• Microscopy & Imaging:
  • Mount the organic residue on glass microscope slides.
  • Examine under transmitted light, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and fluorescence microscopy to characterize morphology and ultrastructure.
• Taxonomic Identification: Compare morphotypes (size, shape, ornamentation, wall structure) to known prokaryotic and eukaryotic microfossils and modern analogues.

Bridging Paleontology and Genomics: A Framework for Calibration

The field of prokaryotic taxonomy is at a turning point, transitioning from a phenotype-based to a genome-based classification system [6]. This shift provides the phylogenetic framework necessary for molecular clock calibration.

The Evolution of Classification Frameworks

The historical reliance on phenotype, as codified in Bergey's Manual, proved inadequate for deep evolutionary reconstruction. The pioneering use of the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S/18S rRNA) gene by Woese and others provided the first universal molecular chronometer, leading to the discovery of the Archaea and a phylogenetic reorganization of life [6]. Today, genome-based classification offers superior resolution. Methods like supertrees (combining independent gene trees) and supermatrices (concatenating genes into a single alignment) use a subset of conserved, vertically inherited genes to build robust phylogenetic trees across the entire tree of life [6]. For defining species, genome-wide similarity measures like Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and digital DNA–DNA hybridisation (dDDH) are now the gold standards [6].

Integrating Fossil Data into Molecular Clock Analyses

The following diagram illustrates the workflow for integrating fossil evidence with genomic data to build a time-calibrated phylogeny.

Diagram 1: From Genomes to Time-Calibrated Trees (87 characters)

The critical step is the assignment of fossil calibrations (Step 4). A fossil, such as a stromatolite indicative of cyanobacterial activity, can be used to set a minimum age constraint for the corresponding cyanobacterial node in the phylogenomic tree. For example, the 2,723 million-year-old Tumbiana Formation stromatolites provide a minimum age for crown-group oxygenic photosynthesisers. The molecular clock model (e.g., Bayesian relaxed clock) then estimates divergence times by extrapolating backward from this and other calibration points, factoring in the rate of genetic change.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details essential reagents and materials used in the featured fields of prokaryotic paleontology and phylogenomics.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Fossil Analysis and Phylogenomics

Item	Function/Brief Explanation
Hydrofluoric Acid (HF)	A highly hazardous reagent used in palynological preparations to dissolve silicate minerals and concentrate acid-resistant organic microfossils from rock samples [73].
Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)	Used in palynology to dissolve carbonate minerals from rock samples prior to HF treatment [73].
Universal 16S rRNA Primers	Short, conserved DNA sequences used to PCR-amplify the 16S rRNA gene from genomic DNA, enabling phylogenetic identification of both cultured and uncultured prokaryotes [6].
Zinc Bromide (ZnBr₂)	A heavy liquid salt solution used for density gradient centrifugation to separate organic microfossils from residual mineral contaminants in palynological residues [73].
Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs)	Not a reagent, but a key data product. MAGs are genomes reconstructed from complex environmental DNA sequences, massively expanding the genomic representation of uncultured prokaryotes for phylogenomic analyses [6].
Conserved Marker Gene Sets	Curated sets of single-copy, vertically inherited genes (e.g., for supermatrix analysis) used for robust genome-based phylogenetic inference across broad taxonomic ranges [6].

Overcoming the calibration hurdle imposed by the scarce prokaryotic fossil record demands a synergistic approach. While the fossil record provides the only direct evidence of ancient life, its interpretation requires rigorous morphological and geochemical protocols. The concurrent construction of genome-based phylogenetic frameworks offers a definitive structure upon which these scarce fossil data can be hung as chronological benchmarks. The continued development of both fields—refining criteria for biogenicity in paleontology and increasing the resolution and accuracy of phylogenomic trees—is essential for reliably dating the pivotal events in the history of prokaryotic life.

The reconstruction of evolutionary history for prokaryotes relies heavily on molecular chronometers—genes or proteins assumed to evolve at a relatively constant rate. However, two fundamental technical limitations consistently challenge the accuracy of these reconstructions: the saturation of mutations and horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Saturation occurs when multiple substitutions obscure the true evolutionary distance between taxa, while HGT introduces genes through non-vertical descent, creating conflicting phylogenetic signals. This whitepaper examines the core principles, detection methodologies, and quantitative impacts of these limitations within prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research, providing researchers with structured data and experimental frameworks to navigate these challenges.

Saturation of Mutations

Core Principle and Impact on Phylogeny

Saturation of mutations is the phenomenon where multiple nucleotide substitutions occur at the same site in a DNA sequence over evolutionary time. In initial divergence periods, nucleotide substitutions accumulate linearly with time, providing a reliable molecular clock. However, as sequences continue to diverge, reverse mutations (reversions) or parallel mutations at the same site cause the observed number of differences between sequences to underestimate the true number of substitutions that have occurred [74]. This leads to a plateau effect in evolutionary distance measures, compressing branch lengths in phylogenetic trees and potentially leading to inaccurate topologies, especially for deep evolutionary nodes.

The problem is particularly acute in prokaryotic phylogenetics due to the ancient origins of bacterial and archaeal lineages. Genes under strong selective constraint, such as 16S rRNA, may resist saturation longer, but eventually experience it, limiting their utility for resolving deep branches.

Detection and Quantitative Assessment

Saturation can be detected and its impact quantified through several methods:

• Pairwise Distance Plots (Transitions vs. Transversions): In nucleotide sequences, transitions (purine-to-purine or pyrimidine-to-pyrimidine changes) occur more frequently than transversions (purine-to-pyrimidine swaps). As sequences saturate, the observed ratio of transitions to transversions decreases. Plotting the number of observed transitions against transversions for sequence pairs at various divergence levels will show a curve that plateaus as saturation sets in.
• Saturation Plots (Observed vs. Expected Divergence): A more generalized approach involves plotting the observed genetic distance (e.g., p-distance) against an expected distance model that corrects for multiple hits, such as the Jukes-Cantor or Kimura 2-parameter model. If the points form a straight line, saturation is minimal; a curve that flattens indicates saturation. This principle was applied in a study of photosynthetic prokaryotes, where whole-genome sequence similarities were correlated with 16S rDNA substitution rates to create a corrected distance matrix [74].
• Testing Rate Constancy: Significant variation in substitution rates across lineages, as documented in bacteria [5], can compound the effects of saturation. Relative rate tests can be employed to check the assumption of a universal molecular clock.

Table 1: Methods for Detecting Sequence Saturation

Method	Principle	Application in Prokaryotes
Transition/Transversion Plot	Tracks the ratio of transition to transversion mutations, which decreases with saturation.	Applied to protein-coding genes (e.g., core genome genes) to assess suitability for phylogenetic inference.
Saturation Plot	Compares observed genetic distance against a model-corrected distance to identify plateaus.	Used in broad-scale phylogenetic analyses, such as those involving multiple bacterial phyla [74].
Relative Rate Test	Checks the assumption of a constant substitution rate across different lineages.	Crucial for validating molecular clocks in bacteria, given the wide rate variation observed [5].

Experimental Protocol for Assessing Saturation

Aim: To evaluate the extent of saturation in a candidate molecular chronometer (e.g., 16S rRNA, concatenated core genes) for a given set of prokaryotic taxa.

• Sequence Alignment: Generate a high-quality multiple sequence alignment for the gene or genomic region of interest.
• Calculate Genetic Distances:
  • Compute the uncorrected p-distance (observed proportion of differing sites) for all sequence pairs.
  • Compute a model-corrected genetic distance (e.g., Jukes-Cantor, General Time Reversible) that estimates the true number of substitutions per site, accounting for multiple hits.
• Generate Saturation Plot: Create a scatter plot with the uncorrected p-distance on the x-axis and the model-corrected distance on the y-axis.
• Interpretation: A linear relationship indicates little to no saturation. A pronounced curvilinear relationship that approaches a plateau indicates strong saturation, suggesting the marker may be unreliable for resolving the phylogenetic depths in question.

Figure 1: A workflow for the experimental assessment of sequence saturation in a phylogenetic marker.

Horizontal Gene Transfer

Core Principle and Impact on Phylogeny

Horizontal gene transfer is the non-inheritance acquisition of genetic material from a donor organism that is not its ancestor. This process fundamentally challenges the classic Darwinian tree-of-life model by creating networks of genetic relationships [75] [76]. A gene acquired via HGT carries the evolutionary history of its donor lineage, which, when used to build a phylogeny, produces a tree that conflicts with the species tree based on vertical descent.

The impact of HGT on prokaryotic genome evolution is profound. Quantitative studies of genome dynamics show that gene family loss and gain (primarily via HGT) are dominant evolutionary processes, with loss occurring at approximately three times the rate of gain [77]. While early studies proposed that HGT was so rampant it rendered the tree of life a "thicket," more recent analyses suggest that although HGT occurs with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages remain the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms [75]. Crucially, the influence of HGT on genome phylogeny is often marginal because the phylogenetic signal of vertically inherited genes remains strong [75].

Methodologies for Detecting Horizontal Gene Transfer

Detecting HGT events accurately is crucial for reconstructing a robust species phylogeny. The main methodological approaches are summarized below.

Table 2: Core Methodologies for Detecting Horizontal Gene Transfer

Method	Principle	Strengths	Limitations
Phylogenetic Incongruence	Constructs a gene tree and identifies conflicts with a trusted species tree (e.g., based on ribosomal proteins).	High specificity for identifying the donor and recipient; can detect ancient transfers.	Computationally intensive; requires a reliable species tree and multiple sequence alignments; can be confounded by other factors like gene loss or incomplete lineage sorting [76].
Compositional Anomalies	Identifies genes with significantly different sequence composition (e.g., GC content, codon usage, dinucleotide frequency) from the host genome.	Fast, genome-wide screening; useful for identifying recent transfers.	Unreliable for transfers from organisms with similar compositional biases; signal erodes over time as the gene ameliorates to host genome norms [76].
Loss of Synteny	Detects genes that disrupt the conserved gene order (synteny) between related genomes.	Does not rely on sequence composition or a known species tree; effective for closely related species/strains.	Lower specificity; requires closely related genomes with sufficient synteny conservation; can suffer from false positives [76].

Advanced Probabilistic Detection Protocol

Recent advances have combined synteny-based approaches with statistical frameworks to improve HGT detection, particularly among closely related strains where phylogenetic signals are weak [76].

Aim: To identify recently transferred genes between closely related prokaryotic genomes using a synteny-index (SI) based probabilistic approach.

• Define Orthologous Groups: Identify sets of orthologous genes across the genomes under study.
• Calculate Synteny Index (SI): For a given orthologous gene ( g0 ) in genomes ( Gi ) and ( Gj ), define its k-neighborhood (e.g., k=5) as the set of genes at a distance of at most k genes upstream or downstream. The SI is the number of common genes in the k-neighborhoods of ( g0 ) in both ( Gi ) and ( Gj ): ( SI(g0, Gi, Gj) = | Nk(Gi, g0) \cap Nk(Gj, g_0) | ).
• Model Expected SI: Under the null hypothesis of no HGT (vertical inheritance only), the SI is expected to follow a distribution based on the constant relative mutability (CRM) of genes, which posits that the ratio of evolutionary rates between genes is maintained across species.
• Statistical Testing: Calculate the probability that the observed low SI for a gene could occur by chance under the CRM model. Use statistical bounds (e.g., Chernoff bound) to decree HGT events, controlling for false positives, especially when dealing with short gene lengths.
• Validation: Compare the results with those from other methods (e.g., phylogenetic incongruence) on a subset of genes to validate the findings.

Figure 2: A probabilistic workflow for detecting HGT based on loss of synteny.

Quantitative Data on Genome Dynamics

Understanding the scale of these processes is key for researchers. The following table summarizes quantitative findings on genome dynamics from large-scale analyses of prokaryotic supergenomes.

Table 3: Quantified Rates of Genome Dynamics in Prokaryotes Data derived from the analysis of 35 clusters (34 bacterial, 1 archaeal) of closely related genomes using a phylogenetic birth-and-death maximum likelihood model [77].

Evolutionary Event	Average Relative Rate	Observed Range (Across Groups)	Primary Evolutionary Mechanism
Gene Family Loss	1.00 (Baseline)	~25-fold variation	Deletion bias, pseudogenization, and streamlining.
Gene Family Gain	~0.33 (3x less than loss)	~25-fold variation	Primarily Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT).
Gene Family Expansion	~0.14 (7x less than gain)	Not Specified	Gene duplication and acquisition of new family members via HGT.
Gene Family Reduction	~0.05 (20x less than loss)	Not Specified	Partial loss of gene family members.

This data confirms that genome contraction is the dominant trend in prokaryotic evolution, partially counterbalanced by gene gain via HGT. The vast range in rates highlights that evolutionary dynamics are highly variable across different prokaryotic lineages.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function / Application	Specific Example / Note
BLAST Suite	Identifying homologous sequences and calculating initial similarity metrics.	blastp for amino acid sequences is used in average similarity methods for whole-genome phylogenetics [74].
Multiple Sequence Aligner	Aligning nucleotide or amino acid sequences for phylogenetic or saturation analysis.	CLUSTALW, MAFFT, or MUSCLE.
Phylogenetic Software	Inferring phylogenetic trees and testing their robustness.	PHYLIP (classical package), RaxML, IQ-TREE, MrBayes. MAPLE is used for pandemic-scale likelihood calculations [78].
Composition Analysis Scripts	Scanning genomes for genes with atypical nucleotide or codon usage.	Custom Perl or Python scripts to calculate GC content, codon adaptation index (CAI), etc.
Synteny Analysis Tools	Visualizing and quantifying gene order conservation between genomes.	Tools like SIAS (Synteny Index and Analysis System) or custom implementations [76].
Birth-and-Death Model Software	Quantifying rates of gene family gain, loss, expansion, and reduction.	Count, a maximum likelihood method based on a phylogenetic birth-and-death model [77].
SPRTA Algorithm	Assessing phylogenetic confidence and alternative evolutionary origins at a large scale.	Subtree pruning and regrafting-based tree assessment; enables pandemic-scale probabilistic assessment [78].

Molecular chronometers provide the foundation for reconstructing evolutionary timelines, yet their accuracy is critically dependent on selecting appropriate models of sequence evolution. For prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, this choice is complicated by factors such as pervasive horizontal gene transfer, varying substitution patterns, and diverse life history traits. This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of clock and substitution model selection frameworks, with specific emphasis on their application to bacterial and archaeal phylogenies. We synthesize current methodologies, evaluation protocols, and computational tools to empower researchers in making informed decisions that enhance the reliability of divergence time estimates and phylogenetic inference in microbiological research.

Molecular chronometers have revolutionized evolutionary biology by enabling researchers to estimate divergence times from genetic sequences. The concept, first proposed by Zuckerkandl and Pauling in the 1960s, relies on the premise that molecular sequences accumulate changes over evolutionary time, functioning as a "molecular clock" [79]. For prokaryotes, which lack an extensive fossil record, these molecular clocks are indispensable for establishing an evolutionary timescale. However, the utility of these clocks depends critically on selecting models that accurately reflect the evolutionary processes shaping prokaryotic genomes.

The 16S ribosomal RNA gene has served as the primary molecular chronometer for prokaryotic classification since Carl Woese's pioneering work, forming the basis for our modern phylogenetic tree of life [13]. This gene is particularly valuable because it is universally distributed, functionally constant, and contains both rapidly evolving regions useful for distinguishing closely related species and conserved regions that reveal deep evolutionary relationships. Nevertheless, the uncritical use of 16S rRNA as a molecular clock has limitations, particularly when it undergoes horizontal gene transfer or when its evolutionary rate varies across lineages [80] [13]. Advances in sequencing technologies and phylogenetic methods have expanded the repertoire of molecular chronometers beyond 16S rRNA to include entire genomes and even epigenetic modifications, offering new opportunities for resolving prokaryotic evolutionary history with greater precision.

Molecular Clock Models: Theory and Application

The Strict Clock Model

The strict molecular clock model represents the simplest approach to modeling sequence evolution, operating under the assumption that every branch in a phylogenetic tree evolves according to the same evolutionary rate [81]. This model effectively reduces to a single parameter representing the conversion rate between branch lengths and evolutionary time. In Bayesian implementations, this parameter is typically equipped with a proper CTMC reference prior to facilitate estimation [81]. The strict clock is most appropriate when analyzing closely related organisms with similar life history traits or when working with genes under consistent functional constraints across the phylogeny. For prokaryotes, this model may be suitable for population-level studies within a single species or recently diverged lineages where metabolic rates, generation times, and population sizes are relatively uniform.

Relaxed Clock Models

Uncorrelated Relaxed Clocks Uncorrelated relaxed clock models represent a significant departure from the strict clock by allowing each branch in a phylogenetic tree to have its own independent evolutionary rate [81]. These models, such as the uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock (UCLN), assume that the evolutionary rate on one branch does not depend upon the rate at any neighboring branches, permitting abrupt changes from fast to slow evolution or vice versa [81] [82]. The different branch rates are typically sampled from a probability distribution (log-normal, exponential, or gamma), whose parameters are also estimated by the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chain. In practice, the implementation in software such as BEAST works by assigning each branch one rate from a fixed number of discrete rates obtained by discretizing the underlying distribution [81].

Random Local Clocks The random local clock (RLC) model represents an intermediate approach between strict and fully relaxed clocks, permitting more variation than a strict clock but less than an uncorrelated relaxed clock [81] [82]. This model proposes a series of local molecular clocks, each extending over a contiguous region of the phylogeny, with each branch representing a potential location for a rate change from one local clock to another. The number of rate changes can range from zero (equivalent to a strict clock) to the number of branches (approaching a fully relaxed clock), with the data determining the optimal number and placement of shifts [81]. Studies have demonstrated that RLC models perform particularly well for "broom" clades (those with long stems and short crowns) where substantial rate shifts occur along the stem branch, outperforming UCLN models which tend to produce artificially young age estimates in such scenarios [82].

Fixed Local Clocks Fixed local clock models represent one of the earliest relaxations of the strict clock assumption, allowing predefined clades or lineages to evolve according to different evolutionary rates while maintaining rate constancy across the remainder of the tree [81]. Implementation requires researchers to define taxon sets a priori, with the model assuming a change in evolutionary rate at the most recent common ancestor of each set. This approach is particularly useful when there is strong biological evidence for rate differences between specific lineages, such as known differences in generation time, metabolic rates, or DNA repair efficiency [81].

Table 1: Comparison of Molecular Clock Models for Prokaryotic Phylogenetics

Clock Model	Key Assumptions	Best Use Cases	Software Implementation	Considerations for Prokaryotes
Strict Clock	Universal evolutionary rate across all lineages	Recently diverged prokaryotes with similar life history traits; calibration-rich datasets	BEAST, MCMCtree, PAML	Often violated due to diverse generation times and metabolic rates
Uncorrelated Lognormal (UCLN)	Each branch has independent rate drawn from lognormal distribution	Lineages with suspected frequent, abrupt rate changes; no a priori knowledge of rate variation	BEAST, MrBayes	May overparameterize when rate shifts are infrequent; can produce artificially young estimates for "broom" clades [82]
Random Local Clock (RLC)	Limited number of local clocks with abrupt shifts between them	"Broom" clades with long stems; lineages with known major life history shifts	BEAST	Superior to UCLN for modeling sustained rate shifts in specific clades [82]
Fixed Local Clock	Predefined clades have different but internally constant rates	Cases with strong biological evidence for rate differences between specific lineages	BEAST, HYPHY	Requires a priori knowledge of rate variation patterns; monophyly of predefined clades critical

Emerging Molecular Clocks

Epigenetic Clocks Recent research has revealed that epigenetic modifications, particularly cytosine methylation, can serve as a fast-ticking molecular clock in plants and potentially other organisms [83]. These "epimutation clocks" accumulate random chemical changes on DNA at a rate that exceeds traditional DNA mutations by several orders of magnitude, enabling high-resolution dating of recent evolutionary events that predate speciation [83]. While this approach has been primarily demonstrated in plants like Arabidopsis thaliana and seagrasses, its potential application to prokaryotes represents an exciting frontier for studying short-term evolutionary dynamics in bacterial populations.

Gene Order Clocks Another emerging approach utilizes gene order and synteny as complementary molecular clocks. Research has revealed a surprising linear relationship between sequence-based clocks (influenced by point mutations) and synteny index distance clocks (influenced by translocation events) among closely related species [80]. This relationship undergoes a phase-transition across non-closely related species, suggesting potential for developing a new genus definition based on analytical approaches rather than arbitrary similarity thresholds [80]. For prokaryotes with significant horizontal gene transfer, such gene order clocks may provide valuable complementary evolutionary information to traditional sequence-based approaches.

Substitution Models for Prokaryotic Phylogenetics

Fundamentals of Substitution Models

Substitution models form the foundation of phylogenetic inference by describing the process by which nucleotide or amino acid sequences change over evolutionary time. The simplest models assume that all types of mutations are equivalent and that all sites in a sequence change at the same rate, while more complex models accommodate heterogeneity in the substitution process [84]. The task of deciding among competing models, known as statistical model selection, represents a trade-off between model accuracy and model complexity [84]. While adding parameters generally improves how well a model fits the data at hand, it also increases statistical uncertainty about each parameter and reduces the biological interpretability of the model.

Model Selection Frameworks

Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Model selection tools like BIC and AIC provide a statistical framework for comparing different substitution models by balancing goodness of fit against model complexity [85]. These criteria are particularly valuable when analyzing prokaryotic sequences, where different genes or genomic regions may evolve under distinct evolutionary pressures. Software such as IQ-TREE automates this process by systematically evaluating hundreds of potential models and their variants to identify the best fit for a given dataset [85].

Non-Stationary and Non-Reversible Models Standard substitution models assume stationarity (the process does not change over time) and reversibility (the probability of change from state i to j equals that from j to i), but these assumptions are often violated in prokaryotic sequences [86]. Non-stationary and non-reversible models relax these assumptions, allowing composition heterogeneity across branches and providing rooting information without external outgroups [86]. These models are particularly valuable for addressing deep evolutionary questions, such as the root of the tree of life or the archaeal radiation, where outgroup rooting is problematic or impossible.

Table 2: Selection of Substitution Models for Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Analysis

Model Type	Key Features	Best Use Cases	Software Implementation	Prokaryotic Considerations
Time-Reversible (GTR)	General time-reversible model with 6 exchangeability parameters	General purpose phylogenetic analysis; default for many applications	RAxML, IQ-TREE, BEAST	May be overly parameterized for some prokaryotic datasets
Non-Reversible Models	Relaxes reversibility assumption; provides intrinsic rooting	Deep phylogenies where outgroup rooting is problematic; compositionally heterogeneous data	BEAST, PhyloBayes	Particularly useful for rooting the tree of life [86]
Non-Stationary Models	Allows changing composition vectors across branches	Lineages with strong compositional heterogeneity; ancient divergences	BEAST, PhyloBayes	Can accommodate varying GC content across bacterial lineages
Profile Mixture Models	Models site heterogeneity using categories from empirical data	Protein-coding genes with heterogeneous selective pressures	PhyloBayes, IQ-TREE	Captures variation in selection pressures across bacterial genes
Codon Models	Models evolution at codon level incorporating synonymous/non-synonymous changes	Protein-coding genes under selection; molecular adaptation studies	PAML, HyPhy, BEAST	Ideal for detecting positive selection in bacterial virulence factors

Prokaryote-Specific Considerations

The selection of substitution models for prokaryotic phylogenetics requires special considerations not always relevant to eukaryotic systems. Prokaryotic genomes often exhibit substantial horizontal gene transfer, which can create conflicting phylogenetic signals between different genes [80]. Additionally, bacterial and archaeal lineages display remarkable diversity in GC content, which can vary from less than 20% to more than 70%, creating composition heterogeneity that violates the assumptions of standard stationary models [86]. Research has also revealed that housekeeping genes, including 16S rRNA, can occasionally undergo horizontal gene transfer, further complicating phylogenetic inference [80] [13]. These factors necessitate careful model selection and, in many cases, the use of composition-heterogeneous models that can accommodate varying sequence characteristics across the tree.

Integrated Model Selection Workflow

Selecting appropriate clock and substitution models requires a systematic approach that incorporates both statistical criteria and biological plausibility. The following workflow provides a structured framework for model selection in prokaryotic phylogenetic studies:

Diagram 1: Integrated workflow for model selection in molecular dating

Experimental Protocols for Model Comparison

Relative Rates Test Protocol The relative rates test provides a phylogeny-free method for detecting significant variation in evolutionary rates between lineages [82]. To implement this test:

• Select three taxa: two closely related test taxa and a more distantly related outgroup
• Calculate raw pairwise distances between each test taxon and the outgroup
• Compare distances using a maximum likelihood framework with a chosen substitution model
• Statistically significant differences indicate rate variation between the test lineages This approach is particularly valuable for identifying major rate shifts that might necessitate relaxed clock models before committing to a specific phylogenetic framework.

Bayesian Model Comparison Protocol Bayesian model comparison using marginal likelihood estimates provides a robust framework for comparing clock models:

• Perform phylogenetic analyses under competing clock models (e.g., strict clock, UCLN, RLC) with identical calibration schemes
• Calculate marginal likelihoods using stepping-stone sampling or path sampling
• Compute Bayes factors to quantify evidence favoring one model over another
• Interpret results: Bayes factors > 10 provide strong evidence for the favored model This approach was used to demonstrate the superiority of random local clocks over uncorrelated lognormal clocks for dating Australian grasstrees, a clade with substantial among-lineage rate variation [82].

16S rRNA Functional Compatibility Assessment For studies relying on 16S rRNA as a molecular chronometer, functional compatibility tests can validate its neutral evolvability:

• Clone heterologous 16S rRNA genes into Escherichia coli strains lacking endogenous rRNA operons
• Measure doubling times and in vitro translational activity of chimeric ribosomes
• Identify domains responsible for functional incompatibility through chimeric gene constructs
• Confirm that the majority of sequence differences are functionally neutral This protocol, applied to acidobacterial 16S rRNA expressed in E. coli, demonstrated that 99.4% of nucleotides were functionally similar despite only 78% sequence identity, supporting its use as a molecular clock [13].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Prokaryotic Molecular Dating

Category	Item	Specification/Version	Function in Analysis
Laboratory Reagents	PCR Master Mix	High-fidelity polymerase formulation	Amplification of target genes for phylogenetic analysis
	DNA Extraction Kit	Certified for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria	High-quality genomic DNA preparation for sequencing
	16S rRNA Primers	Universal prokaryote primers (e.g., 27F/1492R)	Amplification of primary phylogenetic marker gene
	Library Preparation Kit	Illumina-compatible with dual indexing	Preparation of sequencing libraries for phylogenomic approaches
Software Tools	BEAST2	v2.7+	Bayesian evolutionary analysis with multiple clock models [81] [82]
	IQ-TREE	v2.0+	Maximum likelihood phylogenetics with model selection [85]
	Tracer	v1.7+	MCMC diagnostics and marginal likelihood comparison
	FigTree	v1.4+	Visualization and annotation of time-calibrated phylogenies
Analysis Packages	Substitution Models	GTR, HKY85, non-reversible variants [86]	Modeling sequence evolution processes
	Clock Models	Strict, UCLN, RLC, fixed local clocks [81] [82]	Modeling rate variation across lineages
	Calibration Schemes	Lognormal, exponential, uniform priors	Incorporating fossil or biogeographic calibration information

Methodological Visualization

Diagram 2: Methodological pipeline for prokaryotic molecular dating analysis

Accurate model selection represents both a statistical challenge and a biological imperative in prokaryotic phylogenetic classification. The choice of clock and substitution models can profoundly impact divergence time estimates, with studies demonstrating that model misspecification can introduce biases as significant as those caused by improper calibration [82] [79]. As phylogenetic datasets continue to grow in size and complexity, particularly with the increasing availability of prokaryotic genomes, the development and application of appropriate models will become increasingly critical.

Future directions in molecular dating include the integration of epigenetic clocks for high-resolution dating of recent evolutionary events [83], the development of integrated models that simultaneously account for horizontal gene transfer and rate variation [80], and the creation of prokaryote-specific substitution models that better capture the unique evolutionary dynamics of bacterial and archaeal genomes [85]. Additionally, machine learning approaches show promise for automating model selection processes and identifying complex patterns of rate variation that might escape traditional statistical tests. By adopting rigorous model selection frameworks that incorporate both statistical evidence and biological plausibility, researchers can continue to refine the prokaryotic tree of life and reconstruct the evolutionary history of Earth's most diverse and abundant organisms with increasing accuracy.

The unprecedented surge in genomic data, fueled by large-scale sequencing initiatives, presents a fundamental computational challenge for phylogenomics: the critical trade-off between analytical speed and inferential accuracy. This balance is particularly pivotal in prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, where the choice of molecular chronometers directly influences the resolution of evolutionary relationships. While traditional methods relying on single genes like the 16S rRNA provided a foundational framework, they often lack the resolution for precise taxonomic delineation, especially at the species level and for recently diverged lineages [6] [8]. The field is now transitioning towards methods that leverage whole-genome data, employing sophisticated models to account for complex evolutionary patterns. However, these advanced methods demand substantial computational resources and expertise, creating a significant barrier to their widespread adoption [87] [6]. This whitepaper examines the core computational trade-offs in phylogenomic analyses, evaluates current methodologies designed to navigate this balance, and provides a structured framework for researchers to select appropriate strategies for their specific investigative contexts in prokaryotic systematics and drug discovery.

Fundamental Trade-offs: Speed vs. Accuracy in Computational Phylogenetics

The pursuit of a perfectly resolved species tree is constrained by several interdependent factors. Understanding these trade-offs is essential for designing and critiquing phylogenomic studies.

• Data Scope vs. Computational Burden: The shift from single-gene markers (e.g., 16S rRNA, hsp65, tuf) to genome-scale data increases phylogenetic signal but exponentially escalates computational costs for alignment, tree inference, and concordance analysis [6] [8].
• Model Complexity vs. Runtime: Simple evolutionary models are computationally efficient but can be inaccurate due to oversimplification. Conversely, complex models that account for site heterogeneity, different substitution rates, and gene tree discordance are more biologically realistic but require significantly more processing time and resources [87] [88].
• Automation vs. Expert Curation: Fully automated pipelines, such as ROADIES, provide scalability and accessibility for non-experts, enabling the analysis of hundreds of genomes. However, they may lack the fine-tuning and problem-specific adjustments that expert-led, manual curation allows, potentially impacting accuracy in exceptionally challenging evolutionary scenarios [87].
• Reference-Based vs. De Novo Analysis: Methods that rely on existing reference databases or guide trees can drastically speed up analysis but introduce potential biases if the references are incomplete or poorly resolved. De novo methods are more robust but are computationally intensive, as they must rebuild all relationships from scratch [87] [89].

The following table summarizes the core trade-offs and their practical implications for research.

Table 1: Core Computational Trade-offs in Phylogenomic Analysis

Factor	Speed-Optimized Approach	Accuracy-Optimized Approach	Impact on Analysis
Data Type	Single marker gene (e.g., 16S rRNA)	Genome-wide sampling of loci	Genome-scale data offers more signal but increases compute time for alignment and tree inference [6] [8].
Evolutionary Model	Simple model (e.g., Jukes-Cantor)	Complex model (e.g., site-heterogeneous)	Complex models better capture biological reality but require more CPU hours and memory [88].
Species Tree Method	Distance-based (e.g., MashTree)	Discordance-aware coalescent (e.g., ASTRAL)	Coalescent methods account for gene tree variation but need numerous individual gene trees as input [87].
Orthology Inference	Alignment-free k-mer clustering	Tree-based orthology assessment	Tree-based methods are more accurate but scale poorly with thousands of genomes [90].

Emerging Methods and Benchmarking Performance

Recent algorithmic innovations strive to break away from traditional trade-offs by employing strategies that maintain high accuracy while achieving unprecedented scalability. These methods often leverage approximation techniques, efficient algorithms, and parallel computing.

ROADIES is a fully automated pipeline that infers species trees directly from genome assemblies without requiring gene annotations, orthology assignment, or multiple whole-genome alignments. Its key innovation is the random sampling of genomic segments to generate gene trees, bypassing computationally intensive steps. It then uses a discordance-aware method (ASTRAL-Pro3) to combine these trees into a species tree, even when using multicopy genes. Benchmarks show ROADIES produces trees comparable in quality to state-of-the-art studies but in a fraction of the time and effort [87].

FastOMA addresses the scalability crisis in orthology inference, a critical step in many phylogenomic pipelines. By replacing all-against-all sequence comparisons with a fast k-mer-based placement of sequences into pre-defined gene families (Hierarchical Orthologous Groups, HOGs) and a taxonomy-guided inference of the nested HOG structure, FastOMA achieves linear time scalability. It processed over 2,000 eukaryotic proteomes in under 24 hours, a task that would take traditional OMA thousands of CPU hours, while maintaining high precision and recall in benchmark tests [90].

Tronko is designed for the phylogenetic placement of metagenomic reads. It approximates the full phylogenetic likelihood calculation—a traditionally slow process—by using a probabilistically weighted mismatch score based on pre-calculated likelihoods stored at each node of a reference tree. This allows it to perform assignments with a speed-up of over 20 times compared to pplacer, a standard tool for phylogenetic placement, while maintaining high assignment accuracy, particularly when the true species is absent from the reference database [89].

PsiPartition specifically tackles the challenge of site heterogeneity in genomic data. It uses parameterized sorting indices and Bayesian optimization to automatically partition DNA sequence data into groups that evolve at different rates, and then determines the optimal number of partitions. This improves the fit of the evolutionary model, leading to more accurate phylogenetic trees without the manual curation typically required for partitioning, and does so with significantly improved processing speed for large datasets [88].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Modern Phylogenomic Tools

Tool	Primary Function	Key Innovation	Reported Performance Gain	Best-Suited Context
ROADIES [87]	Species tree inference	Random locus sampling & annotation-free workflow	Comparable accuracy in a "fraction of the time" of state-of-the-art methods	Large-scale, automated species tree estimation from genomes
FastOMA [90]	Orthology inference	k-mer-based homology clustering & linear-time algorithm	Processes 2,086 genomes in <24 hrs; original OMA handles only 50 in same time	Scalable orthology inference for thousands of genomes
Tronko [89]	Phylogenetic placement	Approximate likelihood via weighted mismatch score	>20x speed-up over pplacer, with similar accuracy	Metagenomic read assignment to large reference trees
PsiPartition [88]	Model selection	Automated site partitioning via Bayesian optimization	Improved speed and accuracy for large, complex datasets	Phylogenetic inference from genomic data with high site heterogeneity

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

To ensure the reliability and robustness of new phylogenomic methods, rigorous benchmarking against standardized datasets and established protocols is essential. The following section outlines key experimental approaches used to evaluate the tools discussed in this review.

Benchmarking Orthology Inference with FastOMA

The accuracy and scalability of FastOMA were assessed using benchmarks established by the Quest for Orthologs (QfO) consortium [90].

• Procedure:
  • Reference Dataset Curation: A set of trusted reference gene phylogenies (e.g., SwissTree) and a known species tree for the Eukaryota domain were used as ground truth.
  • Orthology Prediction: FastOMA and other state-of-the-art orthology inference methods (e.g., OMA, OrthoFinder, Panther) were run on the same set of input proteomes.
  • Accuracy Quantification:
    • For gene trees, precision (the fraction of predicted orthologs that are true orthologs) and recall (the fraction of true orthologs that are successfully predicted) were calculated against the reference gene phylogenies.
    • For species trees, the topological accuracy was measured using the normalized Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance between the inferred tree and the trusted species tree.
  • Scalability Measurement: The runtime and memory usage of each method were measured as the number of input genomes was systematically increased, allowing for the analysis of scaling behavior.

Evaluating Phylogenetic Placement with Tronko

The performance of Tronko was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation tests on real and simulated datasets to mimic challenging real-world conditions [89].

• Procedure:
  • Dataset Preparation: A curated reference database of 16S and COI sequences from known species (e.g., 253 species from Charadriiformes) was assembled.
  • Cross-Validation:
    • Leave-one-species-out: A single species was entirely removed from the reference database. NGS reads were simulated from this species, and the ability of Tronko and other methods (kraken2, MEGAN, metaphlan2) to assign these reads to the correct clade was assessed.
    • Leave-one-individual-out: A single individual was removed from the reference database, and reads simulated from it were used for testing.
  • Error Introduction: Sequencing errors and polymorphisms (0%, 1%, 2%) were introduced into the simulated reads to test robustness.
  • Metric Calculation: The true-positive rate (accuracy of correct assignments) and assignment rate (percentage of queries assigned at the species level) were calculated and compared across methods.

A Framework for Method Selection and Workflow Design

Selecting the optimal phylogenomic approach requires careful consideration of the research question, data type, and available resources. The following workflow and toolkit provide a structured guide for researchers.

Figure 1: A Decision Framework for Phylogenomic Method Selection

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Item / Resource	Type	Function in Analysis
Genome Assemblies	Data Input	The raw material for species tree inference pipelines like ROADIES; quality (completeness, contiguity) directly impacts results [87].
Reference Databases	Data Resource	Curated sets of sequences (e.g., OMA, SILVA, Greengenes) used for orthology inference (FastOMA) or read assignment (Tronko) [90] [89].
Molecular Chronometers	Genetic Marker	Specific genes (e.g., 16S rRNA, tuf, hsp65) used as evolutionary proxies for classification, especially when genomes are unavailable [6] [8].
ASTRAL-Pro3	Software Algorithm	A discordance-aware summary method used inside ROADIES to compute the species tree from potentially multicopy gene trees [87].
BWA-MEM	Software Algorithm	A fast alignment algorithm used by Tronko for an initial search of query sequences against a reference database [89].
NCBI Taxonomy	Data Resource	A standard taxonomic framework used by tools like FastOMA to guide and improve the accuracy of orthology inference [90].

The field of phylogenomics is moving beyond the rigid trade-off between speed and accuracy through innovative algorithms that leverage approximation, intelligent data reduction, and parallelization. Tools like ROADIES, FastOMA, Tronko, and PsiPartition exemplify this trend, enabling researchers to conduct analyses at previously intractable scales without sacrificing biological rigor. For prokaryotic taxonomy, this means the potential for a comprehensive, genome-based phylogenetic framework that systematically incorporates both cultured and uncultured diversity [87] [6]. Future advancements will likely integrate structural and gene-order data to further refine orthology inference and phylogenetic resolution. As these computational methods become more accessible and automated, they will empower a broader community of researchers, including those in drug development, to generate robust phylogenetic hypotheses that illuminate evolutionary history and inform the identification of novel microbial targets.

Molecular clocks, which use the rate of genetic change to date evolutionary events, are fundamental tools for reconstruct the history of life. However, estimates derived from molecular clocks frequently conflict with evidence from the fossil record and phenotypic data. For prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research, reconciling these discrepancies is particularly critical. The absence of a robust fossil record for most microbial lineages increases reliance on molecular methods, making it essential to understand and correct for the sources of error and bias in molecular dating. Advances in phylogenomics and structural biology now provide new pathways for resolving these conflicts, creating more reliable chronological frameworks for microbial evolution.

The core of the discrepancy problem lies in the inherent limitations of each data type. Fossil evidence, often used for external calibration, can be limited by an incomplete record and stratigraphic uncertainties. The oldest discovered fossil may not represent the true origin of a lineage but merely the point at which a stable, preservable population existed [91]. Conversely, molecular clock estimates can be skewed by variations in substitution rates across lineages, the presence of ancestral polymorphisms, and differences in effective population sizes [92] [93]. In prokaryotes, high rates of horizontal gene transfer further complicate the picture by decoupling the evolutionary history of a gene from that of the organism.

Methodological Frameworks for Reconciliation

Structural Phylogenetics for Deeper Evolutionary Insights

Recent breakthroughs in artificial-intelligence-based protein structure prediction have given rise to structural phylogenetics. Because protein folds are highly constrained by function and evolve more slowly than the underlying amino acid sequences, they preserve evolutionary information far beyond sequence saturation points. This allows for the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships over longer evolutionary timescales.

• The FoldTree Approach: This method involves using a structural alphabet (3Di) from Foldseek to align protein sequences. A statistically corrected distance metric (Fident) derived from this alignment is then used to build phylogenetic trees with neighbor-joining. This approach has been demonstrated to outperform traditional sequence-based maximum-likelihood methods, especially for highly divergent protein families. It is robust to conformational changes that can confound traditional structural distance measures like root-mean-square deviation (r.m.s.d.) [94].
• Application to Prokaryotic Systems: This is particularly powerful for analyzing fast-evolving protein families in prokaryotes and their viruses. For instance, structural phylogenetics has been used to clarify the evolutionary history of the RRNPPA quorum-sensing receptors, a challenging family that allows gram-positive bacteria, plasmids, and bacteriophages to communicate. The structure-informed phylogeny proposed a more parsimonious evolutionary history for this critical protein family than sequence-based trees could achieve [94].

The Multispecies Coalescent (MSC) Model

The Multispecies Coalescent (MSC) provides a population genetics-informed framework that explicitly models the difference between gene divergence and species divergence. Traditional phylogenetic methods often equate sequence divergence with speciation events, which can be misleading.

• Accounting for Incomplete Lineage Sorting (ILS): The MSC accommodates gene tree heterogeneity caused by ILS, which is widespread across the tree of life. It jointly estimates species divergence times and ancestral population sizes by scaling branch lengths in coalescent units (T = t/(2N), where t is generations and N is effective population size) [92].
• Mutation Rate Calibration: The MSC can be scaled to absolute time using de novo mutation rates estimated from pedigree studies, providing an alternative to fossil calibration. This is especially valuable for prokaryotic groups with a poor fossil record. However, this approach can yield strikingly different divergence times compared to fossil-calibrated concatenation methods, highlighting the profound impact of methodological choice [92].

Total Evidence Dating and the Fossilized Birth-Death (FBD) Model

Total Evidence Dating (TED) is a "big data" approach that integrates multiple lines of evidence into a single analysis.

• Combining Data Types: TED incorporates molecular sequence data, morphological character matrices from extant and fossil taxa, and stratigraphic range data simultaneously. This method treats fossils as tips on the tree rather than as mere calibration points on internal nodes, allowing their placement to be inferred directly from the morphological data [91].
• Fossilized Birth-Death (FBD) Model: The FBD model provides the statistical backbone for many TED analyses. It supplies a unified framework that links speciation, extinction, and fossil discovery rates, enabling the joint inference of phylogenetic relationships and divergence times from living species and fossils in a single framework. A study on Marattialean ferns demonstrated that tip-dating with the FBD model provided a better fit and more coherent results than node-based calibration [91].

Table 1: Key Methodological Frameworks for Reconciling Molecular and Fossil Data

Framework	Core Principle	Primary Advantage	Best Suited For
Structural Phylogenetics [94]	Uses conserved protein structures for tree-building	Recovers deeper evolutionary relationships beyond sequence saturation	Highly divergent protein families; prokaryotic evolution
Multispecies Coalescent (MSC) [92]	Models gene tree-species tree discordance due to ILS	Provides more accurate species divergence times; can use mutation rate calibration	Groups with high ILS; populations with known pedigree mutation rates
Total Evidence Dating (TED) [91]	Integrates molecular, morphological, and fossil data	Uses all available evidence; explicitly models fossil placement as tips	Groups with a well-characterized fossil record and morphology

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for Structural Phylogenetics (FoldTree)

This protocol is designed for reconstructing robust phylogenies for highly divergent protein families where sequence-based methods fail.

• Protein Family Curation: Collect homologous protein sequences for the family of interest. For prokaryotic quorum-sensing receptors like RRNPPA, identify representatives across target bacterial phyla, plasmids, and bacteriophages.
• Structure Prediction: Generate high-confidence 3D protein structure models for each sequence using AI-based tools like AlphaFold2. Filter out models with low per-residue confidence scores (pLDDT) to ensure reliability [94].
• Structural Alignment: Perform an all-versus-all comparison of the predicted structures using Foldseek. Utilize its structural alphabet (3Di) to create alignments based on local structural similarity, which is robust to global conformational changes.
• Distance Matrix Calculation: Compute a pairwise distance matrix from the Foldseek alignments using the statistically corrected sequence similarity metric (Fident).
• Tree Building: Reconstruct the phylogenetic tree using a distance-based method, specifically neighbor-joining (NJ), from the calculated distance matrix.
• Validation: Benchmark the resulting tree's topological congruence against known taxonomic relationships or other reference data using metrics like the Taxonomic Congruence Score (TCS) to verify its improvement over sequence-only trees [94].

Protocol for Mutation Rate-Calibrated MSC Analysis

This protocol uses pedigree-based mutation rates to date divergence events independently of the fossil record.

• Data Collection: Assemble a genome-scale, multi-locus dataset (e.g., from whole-genome sequencing) for the species or populations under study.
• Mutation Rate Sourcing: Obtain a direct, per-generation estimate of the mutation rate (μ) from pedigree or mutation-accumulation studies for the clade of interest. If unavailable, a rate from a closely related model organism may be used with appropriate caveats.
• Species Tree and Gene Tree Inference: Use Bayesian software such as StarBEAST2 to co-estimate the species tree and underlying gene trees from the multi-locus data under the MSC model.
• Apply Mutation Rate Calibration: Scale the branch lengths of the species tree from coalescent units to absolute time (in years) using the per-generation mutation rate and estimates of generation time.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct analyses under different plausible generation times and mutation rates to quantify the uncertainty in the resulting divergence time estimates [92].

Visualizing Reconciliation Workflows

The following diagram illustrates a generalized, integrated workflow for reconciling molecular clock estimates with other data types, incorporating elements from the protocols above.

Diagram 1: A generalized workflow for reconciling molecular clock estimates, showing the integration of molecular, structural, and fossil data through multiple analytical frameworks.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing these advanced phylogenetic methodologies requires a suite of computational tools and data resources. The table below details key resources for establishing a molecular chronometer research pipeline.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Reconciliation
AlphaFold2 [94]	Software Suite	Protein structure prediction from sequence	Generates high-accuracy 3D models for structural phylogenetics input.
Foldseek [94]	Algorithm & Software	Fast structural protein alignment & comparison	Enables structural alignment using a 3Di alphabet; core of the FoldTree approach.
BEAST2 / StarBEAST2 [92]	Software Package	Bayesian evolutionary analysis & coalescent modeling	Implements relaxed molecular clocks, MSC, and FBD models for divergence dating.
CATH Database [94]	Curated Database	Hierarchical classification of protein structures	Provides structurally defined homologous families for benchmarking methods.
Pedigree Mutation Rates	Data Resource	Empirical per-generation mutation rate estimates	Calibrates the MSC model in the absence of robust fossils [92].
Fossil Morphological Matrices	Data Resource	Coded phenotypic character data for taxa	Essential input for Total Evidence Dating and tip-dating with the FBD model [91].

Quantitative Data and Case Studies

Empirical Performance of Structural vs. Sequence Methods

Large-scale benchmarking studies have quantified the performance of structural phylogenetics against traditional methods. Using the CATH database of protein homology families, the FoldTree approach was evaluated based on Taxonomic Congruence Score (TCS), which measures how well a protein tree's topology matches the known species taxonomy.

• On divergent protein families (CATH dataset), structure-based methods like FoldTree significantly outperformed sequence-based maximum-likelihood methods. Structurally informed trees received a larger proportion of the highest-scoring trees overall [94].
• The choice of calibration strategy can have a greater impact on final age estimates than the type of genomic data used. A 2025 study on Palaeognathae birds found that the use of multiple internal fossil calibrations yielded consistent age estimates for the crown group origin (~62-68 Ma) across different sequence types (noncoding, coding, mitogenomic), whereas calibration strategy had a larger effect than data type [95].

Table 3: Impact of Calibration Strategy vs. Data Type on Age Estimates (Crown Palaeognathae) [95]

Factor Varied	Condition	Estimated Age of Crown Palaeognathae	Key Finding
Calibration Strategy	With internal fossil calibrations	~62 - 68 Million years ago (Ma)	Multiple internal calibrations produce consistent results.
Calibration Strategy	Without internal calibrations	Wider variation, up to ~51 Ma (Eocene)	Lack of internal constraints leads to greater uncertainty.
Genomic Data Type	Noncoding (CNEE)	Generally younger ages (except one node)	Data type has an effect, but it is secondary to calibration.
Genomic Data Type	Coding (1st+2nd codon) / UCEs	~62 - 68 Ma (with internal calibrations)	Different data types converge with proper calibration.

Theoretical Basis for Molecular Clock Discrepancies

Population genetics theory explains why molecular clocks can show elevated rates over short timescales, leading to overestimates of recent divergence times if not properly modeled.

• The Polymorphism Barrier: When two populations diverge, genetic differences are due to both new mutations and ancestral polymorphisms that were segregating in the ancestral population. Coalescent theory states that the expected coalescence time for two random gene lineages is 2N_e generations. This means that even at the moment of divergence (time zero), the two sequences will already differ due to this ancestral variation, creating an "overcount" of substitutions and making divergences appear older than they are [93].
• Impact of Slightly Deleterious Mutations: A population carries a load of slightly deleterious mutations that behave neutrally over short timescales but are eventually purged by selection over the long term. Their transient presence in the short term inflates the observed genetic distance, further contributing to the apparent elevation of the molecular clock rate immediately after divergence [93].

Resolving discrepancies between molecular clock estimates, fossil data, and phenotypic evidence requires a multifaceted approach that moves beyond simple sequence comparison and single-gene phylogenies. The integration of structural phylogenetics, coalescent theory, and total evidence dating represents the cutting edge of this endeavor. For prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, where the fossil record is exceptionally sparse, methods like structural phylogenetics and mutation-rate calibrated coalescent models offer promising paths to a more accurate timeline of evolution.

Future progress will depend on continued development in several key areas: the refinement of AI-based protein structure prediction for diverse microbial proteins, the expansion of curated databases linking molecular data with phenotypic traits, and the creation of more complex models that can simultaneously account for horizontal gene transfer, selection, and population history. By embracing these interdisciplinary frameworks and tools, researchers can transform conflicts between data types into opportunities for generating a more coherent and reliable understanding of life's history.

Benchmarking the Tools: Validation, Comparative Accuracy, and Best Practices

Molecular dating represents a critical component of evolutionary analysis, enabling researchers to temporally scale phylogenetic trees and infer divergence times. In the era of phylogenomics, the computational burden of Bayesian methods has prompted the development of fast dating approaches. This technical evaluation examines the performance of two prominent rapid dating methods—RelTime (implementing the Relative Rate Framework) and treePL (implementing Penalized Likelihood)—against Bayesian benchmarks. Analysis of empirical phylogenomic datasets reveals that RelTime provides node age estimates statistically equivalent to Bayesian divergence times while being computationally more than 100 times faster than treePL and significantly more efficient than Bayesian methods. treePL consistently produced time estimates with low levels of uncertainty but required substantially greater computational resources. For prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research, where large genomic datasets are common, RelTime offers an efficient alternative to Bayesian dating, facilitating rapid testing of evolutionary hypotheses without sacrificing accuracy.

Molecular dating has revolutionized evolutionary biology since its inception in the 1960s, providing a temporal framework for understanding species divergence [50] [49]. The exponential growth of phylogenomic datasets, however, presents substantial computational challenges for Bayesian molecular dating methods that rely on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling [50]. These approaches can become prohibitively slow for large datasets, hindering the rapid testing of evolutionary hypotheses [49].

To address these limitations, rapid dating methods have been developed that offer significantly faster computation while accommodating rate variation across lineages [96]. Two of the most prominent are Penalized Likelihood (PL), implemented in the software treePL, and the Relative Rate Framework (RRF), implemented in RelTime [50] [96]. These methods have been applied across diverse branches of the Tree of Life, from prokaryotes to plants and animals [50] [49].

For researchers focused on prokaryotic classification, where genomic datasets are particularly extensive, understanding the relative performance of these fast methods against Bayesian benchmarks is crucial for methodological selection. This technical guide provides a comprehensive evaluation based on current empirical and simulation studies, with specific application to prokaryotic phylogenetic research.

Methodological Frameworks

Bayesian Molecular Dating

Bayesian methods employ sophisticated statistical models to estimate divergence times while incorporating prior knowledge through calibration points [50]. These approaches model rate variation across branches using relaxed clocks that can assume either autocorrelated or uncorrelated rate changes [96]. Popular implementations include BEAST, MCMCTree, and PhyloBayes [50]. While considered the gold standard for accuracy, Bayesian methods require substantial computational resources for MCMC sampling, particularly with large phylogenomic datasets [50] [49].

Penalized Likelihood (treePL)

The Penalized Likelihood approach, implemented in treePL, uses a penalty function to minimize rate changes between adjacent branches across the entire phylogeny [50] [49]. This method assumes autocorrelation of evolutionary rates, where closely related lineages are expected to have similar evolutionary rates [50]. A key component is the smoothing parameter (λ), optimized through cross-validation, which controls the global level of permitted rate variation [49]. Lower λ values allow greater rate variation across the phylogeny [49].

Relative Rate Framework (RelTime)

The Relative Rate Framework, implemented in RelTime, takes a distinct approach by minimizing differences in evolutionary rates between ancestral and descendant lineages individually rather than through a global penalty function [50] [96]. This method accommodates rate differences between sister lineages without requiring a cross-validation step to optimize parameters [49]. RelTime operates on lineage rates (encompassing the stem branch and its resulting clade) rather than individual branch rates [50].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Molecular Dating Methods

Feature	Bayesian Methods	treePL (PL)	RelTime (RRF)
Rate variation model	Autocorrelated or uncorrelated	Autocorrelated	Autocorrelated
Computational demand	High	Moderate	Low
Calibration flexibility	Multiple probability distributions	Minimum and maximum bounds	Calibration densities
Uncertainty estimation	Posterior distributions	Bootstrap	Analytical equations
Theoretical basis	Bayesian statistics	Penalized maximum likelihood	Relative rate framework

Performance Evaluation

Empirical Dataset Analysis

A comprehensive evaluation analyzed 23 empirical phylogenomic datasets to assess the relative performance of fast dating methods compared to Bayesian approaches [50] [49]. These datasets encompassed diverse taxonomic groups with divergence times ranging to the Precambrian era, containing DNA and amino acid sequences with alignment lengths from ~5 kb to >4 Mb [50].

The performance assessment revealed that RelTime generally provided node age estimates statistically equivalent to Bayesian divergence times [49]. Linear regression analyses demonstrated strong correlation between RelTime and Bayesian estimates across multiple datasets [49]. treePL also showed general concordance with Bayesian estimates but exhibited systematically lower levels of uncertainty in its time estimates compared to both Bayesian methods and RelTime [50] [49].

Table 2: Performance Metrics from Empirical Dataset Analysis

Method	Computational Speed	Statistical Equivalence to Bayesian	Uncertainty Estimation	Ease of Calibration
Bayesian	Baseline (slowest)	Reference standard	Comprehensive (posterior distributions)	Highly flexible
treePL	>100x slower than RelTime [50]	Generally equivalent [49]	Underestimated (narrow CIs) [50]	Minimum/maximum bounds only
RelTime	Fastest (>100x faster than treePL) [50]	Generally equivalent [49]	Appropriate coverage (95% CI) [96]	Flexible (calibration densities)

Simulation Studies

Computer simulation studies provided additional insights into method performance under controlled conditions with known evolutionary parameters [96]. These investigations examined accuracy under different models of rate variation, including constant rates, autocorrelated rates, and uncorrelated rates with substantial variation [96].

When evolutionary rates were autocorrelated—a pattern considered pervasive across the Tree of Life—RelTime estimates demonstrated higher accuracy than both treePL and Least-Squares Dating (LSD) approaches [96]. The 95% confidence intervals around RelTime dates showed appropriate coverage probabilities (averaging 95%), whereas other methods produced overly narrow confidence intervals with lower coverage probabilities [96].

In scenarios with convergent rate shifts, where distinct lineages independently experienced similar rate changes, RelTime maintained superior accuracy compared to alternative rapid dating methods [96]. This performance advantage is particularly relevant for prokaryotic evolution, where environmental adaptations can drive convergent evolutionary rate changes.

Experimental Protocols

Standardized Assessment Methodology

To ensure fair comparison across dating methods, researchers established a standardized protocol for evaluating performance on empirical datasets [49]:

• Dataset Collection: Gather empirical phylogenomic datasets from public repositories with associated Bayesian timetrees or necessary input files. The 23 datasets analyzed included information from arthropods, chordates, plants, and other diverse taxa [50] [49].

• Input Standardization: Use the same sequence alignment and topology as originally employed in each study for all subsequent dating analyses [49].

• Calibration Consistency: Extract temporal calibration information from original studies and apply according to each method's specific requirements. For treePL, convert probability distributions to minimum and maximum bounds using the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles. For RelTime, use the original probability distributions directly where possible [49].

• Branch Length Estimation: Estimate all branch lengths (in substitutions per site) using MEGA X to standardize input across methods [49].

• Software Implementation:

  • RelTime: Perform calculations using command-line MEGA X with analytical confidence interval estimation [49].
  • treePL: First run with 'prime' option to select optimization parameters, then perform cross-validation to optimize smoothing values (37 parameters tested), and finally run with 'thorough' option. Calculate confidence intervals from 100 bootstrap replicates summarized in TreeAnnotator [49].

• Performance Metrics: Calculate linear regressions of fast method estimates against Bayesian estimates, reporting coefficient of determination (R²) and slope (β). Compute normalized average differences between methods [49].

Computational Requirements Assessment

The computational efficiency analysis was conducted on a standardized system with a 3.2 GHz 6-Core Intel i7 processor and 64 GB 2667 MHz DDR4 RAM [49]. Run times were tracked for each method across datasets of varying sizes, with RelTime demonstrating significantly faster performance—over 100 times faster than treePL in direct comparisons [50].

Integration with Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

The application of molecular dating to prokaryotic classification presents unique challenges, including horizontal gene transfer, the absence of a universal molecular clock, and limited fossil calibration points [97]. The performance characteristics of fast dating methods directly address these challenges in several ways:

• Computational Efficiency: For large-scale prokaryotic genomic analyses encompassing hundreds or thousands of genomes, RelTime's computational advantage enables more comprehensive phylogenetic dating without prohibitive computational demands [50] [49].

• Calibration Flexibility: RelTime's support for calibration densities accommodates uncertainty in prokaryotic evolutionary timescales, where fossil evidence is often absent and calibration points may be derived from geochemical events or host co-divergence with substantial uncertainty [49].

• Rate Variation Handling: Prokaryotic evolutionary rates exhibit substantial heterogeneity across lineages due to varying population sizes, generation times, and DNA repair efficiency [97]. The superior performance of RelTime under conditions of rate autocorrelation and convergent rate shifts makes it particularly suitable for prokaryotic dating [96].

• Trait Evolution Modeling: Recent advances in phylogenetically-informed trait prediction, such as the Phydon framework for microbial growth rate prediction, demonstrate the value of integrating phylogenetic information with genomic features [97]. RelTime's efficient production of dated phylogenies facilitates such integrative approaches for prokaryotic trait evolution studies.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
MEGA X	Software package incorporating RelTime for molecular dating	General phylogenetic analysis, divergence time estimation
treePL	Standalone software for penalized likelihood dating	Large phylogeny dating with autocorrelated rates
BEAST2	Bayesian evolutionary analysis sampling trees	Bayesian dating with complex models
MCMCTree	Bayesian dating using approximate likelihood	Large dataset Bayesian dating
PhyloBayes	Bayesian phylogenetic inference using mixture models	Dating with site-heterogeneous models
Phydon	Phylogenetically-informed trait prediction framework	Integrating phylogenetic relationships with genomic features
gRodon	Codon usage bias-based growth rate prediction	Microbial growth rate estimation from genomic data

This comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that rapid molecular dating methods, particularly RelTime, provide viable alternatives to Bayesian approaches for phylogenomic dating. Based on empirical and simulation studies, RelTime offers the optimal balance of accuracy and computational efficiency for prokaryotic phylogenetic classification research. Its performance equivalence to Bayesian methods, combined with significantly faster computation and appropriate uncertainty estimation, makes it particularly suitable for analyzing large genomic datasets typical in prokaryotic evolution studies.

For research applications where computational resources are limited or rapid hypothesis testing is required, RelTime represents a methodologically sound choice. treePL remains valuable for analyses where rate autocorrelation is strongly assumed and computational time is less constrained. Bayesian methods continue to provide the most comprehensive uncertainty quantification for studies where computational demands are manageable. The ongoing development of hybrid approaches that combine phylogenetic dating with trait evolution modeling, such as Phydon, promises to further enhance our ability to infer evolutionary timescales and traits from genomic data, with significant implications for prokaryotic classification and beyond.

The accurate classification and identification of prokaryotes represent a cornerstone of microbial ecology, clinical diagnostics, and biotechnology development. For decades, the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene has served as the "gold standard" molecular chronometer for phylogenetic studies and taxonomic assignment, owing to its essential function, ubiquity, and highly conserved nature [11]. This gene, approximately 1,550 base pairs long, contains a mosaic of variable and conserved regions that provide sufficient phylogenetic signal to differentiate major bacterial lineages [11]. The comparative analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences, pioneered by Woese and others, fundamentally revolutionized our understanding of microbial evolution and established the three-domain system of life [11] [13].

However, the genomic era has revealed significant limitations in the resolution power of 16S rRNA, particularly at and below the species level [98] [99]. These limitations have stimulated the exploration of alternative molecular markers, including ribosomal proteins and other conserved single-copy genes. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the resolution power of 16S rRNA, ribosomal proteins, and conserved marker genes within the context of prokaryotic phylogenetic classification. We synthesize current research to guide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting appropriate molecular chronometers for their specific applications, with particular emphasis on technical methodologies and quantitative performance metrics.

The Established Gold Standard: 16S rRNA Gene

Technical Foundations and Traditional Applications

The 16S rRNA gene has emerged as the preferred genetic marker for bacterial identification and phylogenetic analysis due to several fundamental characteristics. As a component of the small ribosomal subunit, it performs an essential function in protein synthesis, constraining its evolution and making it suitable as a molecular chronometer [11]. The gene is universally distributed across bacteria, contains both highly conserved and variable regions, and has a sufficient length (~1,550 bp) to provide statistically valid measurements for phylogenetic inference [11]. Universal primers can be designed to target conserved regions, enabling amplification and sequencing of the intervening variable regions that carry phylogenetic signal.

The mechanics of 16S rRNA-based analysis typically involve amplifying either the full-length gene or specific variable regions (e.g., V1-V3, V3-V4, or V4 alone) using PCR, followed by sequencing and comparative analysis against curated databases such as SILVA [100] or those maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). For most clinical bacterial isolates, sequencing the initial 500-bp region provides adequate differentiation, though sequencing the entire gene may be necessary for distinguishing certain taxa or describing new species [11].

Limitations and Evolutionary Dynamics

Despite its widespread adoption, 16S rRNA gene sequencing possesses several critical limitations that affect its resolution power:

• Inadequate resolution at species and subspecies levels: A growing body of evidence demonstrates that 16S rRNA lacks sufficient sequence variation to reliably distinguish closely related species [98] [99]. Surprisingly, numerous cases exist where evolutionarily distinct species (with genome-wide average nucleotide identity [ANI] of approximately 82.5%) share essentially identical 16S rRNA sequences (>99.9% identity) [99]. This phenomenon questions its applicability as a species-specific marker.

• Intragenomic heterogeneity: Many bacterial species possess multiple copies of the 16S rRNA gene (typically 7 copies in Escherichia coli), and these intragenomic copies can differ in sequence, leading to the identification of multiple ribotypes for a single organism [98]. This heterogeneity can influence tree topology, phylogenetic resolution, and operational taxonomic unit (OTU) estimates, particularly at finer taxonomic levels.

• Evolutionary rigidity and horizontal gene transfer: Contrary to traditional understanding, 16S rRNA exhibits evolutionary rigidity with significantly lower mutation rates compared to the rest of the genome [99]. Recent evidence suggests that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of 16S rRNA within genera contributes to this evolutionary stasis, further complicating its use for precise phylogenetic reconstructions [99].

• Database inaccuracies: The presence of inaccurate sequences in public databases remains a persistent problem, potentially leading to misidentification [11].

Table 1: Quantitative Limitations of 16S rRNA in Bacterial Classification

Limitation	Quantitative Impact	Technical Consequence
Species-level resolution	175+ cases of different species sharing >99.9% 16S identity [99]	Inability to distinguish well-differentiated species
Intragenomic heterogeneity	Varies by genus; concentrated in specific regions [98]	Multiple ribotypes per organism; overestimation of diversity
Evolutionary rate	Extremely low compared to rest of genome [99]	Poor resolution for closely related taxa
Copy number variation	Typically 7 copies in E. coli; varies by genus [99]	Complicates assembly and quantitative analysis

Alternative Molecular Chronometers

Ribosomal Proteins and Housekeeping Genes

The limitations of 16S rRNA have prompted the investigation of alternative molecular markers, with ribosomal proteins and core housekeeping genes showing particular promise:

• rpoB gene: The gene encoding the RNA polymerase β subunit is a single-copy housekeeping gene that provides phylogenetic resolution comparable to 16S rRNA at higher taxonomic levels and superior resolution at the species and subspecies levels [98]. As a protein-encoding gene, rpoB contains both synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions, providing different evolutionary timescales for analysis.

• Ribosomal proteins: Proteins comprising the ribosomal machinery offer an alternative to rRNA-based phylogenetics. These proteins are universally distributed, essential for cellular function, and generally exist as single-copy genes, avoiding the complications of intragenomic heterogeneity [101]. The evolutionary dynamics of ribosomal proteins can differ from 16S rRNA, potentially providing complementary phylogenetic information.

• Multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA): This approach leverages multiple housekeeping genes (typically 4-7) to construct more robust phylogenetic trees and improve taxonomic resolution [102]. MLSA has been shown to distinguish taxa with identical or nearly identical 16S rRNA sequences, revealing ecological differentiation that would otherwise remain undetected [98].

Comparative Resolution Power

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Molecular Markers for Phylogenetic Classification

Marker	Optimal Taxonomic Level	Advantages	Limitations
16S rRNA	Genus and above [11]	Extensive databases; universal primers; well-established protocols	Limited species/subspecies resolution; intragenomic heterogeneity [98] [99]
rpoB	Species and subspecies [98]	Single-copy gene; superior resolution at species level; avoids intragenomic heterogeneity	Smaller databases; less universal primer design
Ribosomal proteins	Multiple taxonomic levels [101]	Single-copy genes; functional constraints; amino acid sequences provide deep evolutionary signal	Requires translation; potential for horizontal transfer
Multilocus sequence analysis	Species and strains [102]	High resolution; robust phylogenetic trees; reveals ecological differentiation	More resource-intensive; computational complexity

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Workflow

The standard protocol for 16S rRNA-based phylogenetic analysis involves the following key steps:

• DNA Extraction: Use of standardized kits or protocols to ensure high-quality, inhibitor-free genomic DNA from pure cultures or environmental samples.

• PCR Amplification: Employ universal primers targeting conserved regions of the 16S rRNA gene. Common primer pairs include:

  • 27F (5'-AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG-3') and 1492R (5'-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3') for full-length amplification [98]
  • Region-specific primers (e.g., V3-V4 hypervariable regions) for short-read sequencing platforms

• Sequencing: Utilize Sanger sequencing for pure isolates or next-generation sequencing (Illumina, PacBio, or Oxford Nanopore) for community analysis.

• Sequence Analysis:

  • Quality control and trimming of raw sequences
  • Alignment against reference databases (e.g., SILVA, Greengenes) [100]
  • Phylogenetic tree construction using maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, or Bayesian methods
  • Taxonomic classification using tools such as QIIME 2, MOTHUR, or ARB

• Interpretation: Species identification typically requires ≥97% 16S rRNA sequence similarity to a reference strain, though this threshold varies among bacterial taxa [11].

2rpoBGene Analysis Protocol

For rpoB-based phylogenetic analysis, the following methodology is recommended:

• Primer Design: Design degenerate primers targeting conserved regions of the rpoB gene based on multiple sequence alignments of related taxa.

• Amplification and Sequencing:

  • PCR amplification using touchdown protocols to accommodate primer degeneracy
  • Purification and sequencing of amplicons
  • Alternatively, extract rpoB sequences from whole-genome sequencing data

• Sequence Processing:

  • Translation to amino acid sequences to verify correct open reading frame
  • Alignment at both nucleotide and amino acid levels
  • Removal of recombinant sequences using tools such as RDP4

• Phylogenetic Reconstruction:

  • Model selection using MODELTEST or similar programs [98]
  • Tree construction using maximum likelihood or Bayesian inference
  • Bootstrap analysis (typically with 100-1000 replicates) to assess node support

• Species Delineation: Apply appropriate sequence similarity thresholds (e.g., 96-97% for rpoB nucleotide identity) for species boundaries, validated against DNA-DNA hybridization or ANI values [98].

Molecular Phylogenetics Workflow: This diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for phylogenetic classification using different molecular markers, from sample collection to taxonomic identification.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Resources for Phylogenetic Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Sources/Platforms
Universal 16S rRNA primers	Amplification of target gene from diverse taxa	27F/1492R [98]; 515F/806R (for V4 region)
rpoB degenerate primers	Amplification of rpoB gene across taxonomic groups	Custom-designed based on taxon of interest [98]
SILVA database	Curated alignment of ribosomal RNA sequences [100]	https://www.arb-silva.de/
LPSN (List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature)	Taxonomic information for validated prokaryotic names [102]	https://lpsn.dsmz.de/
ARB software package	Integrated tool for sequence handling and analysis [100]	http://www.arb-home.de/
ModelTest	Statistical selection of nucleotide substitution models [98]	Implemented in PAUP* or PhyML
PAUP*	Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods [98]	Commercial software
Microbial Genome Database	Repository of complete bacterial genomes	NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/microbes/)

The comparative analysis of 16S rRNA, ribosomal proteins, and conserved marker genes reveals a complex landscape of complementary tools for prokaryotic phylogenetic classification. While 16S rRNA remains an invaluable marker for higher-order taxonomy and initial identification, its limitations at the species and subspecies levels necessitate supplemental approaches. The rpoB gene provides superior resolution for closely related taxa, while ribosomal proteins and multilocus sequence analyses offer robust frameworks for detailed phylogenetic reconstruction. The evolving paradigm in microbial taxonomy emphasizes a polyphasic approach that integrates multiple molecular chronometers with genomic data to achieve accurate classification and identification. As genomic technologies continue to advance, the integration of these complementary markers will undoubtedly refine our understanding of prokaryotic phylogeny and evolution, with significant implications for clinical diagnostics, drug development, and microbial ecology.

In the field of prokaryotic phylogenetic classification, molecular chronometers provide the primary means to reconstruct evolutionary timelines in the absence of a robust fossil record [6] [5]. Unlike macroscopic organisms, bacteria and archaea leave minimal fossil evidence, making molecular dating techniques indispensable for estimating divergence times [5]. However, these estimates are inherently uncertain, and proper interpretation of confidence intervals surrounding divergence times is crucial for drawing meaningful biological conclusions about microbial evolution, origins, and diversification [103].

This technical guide addresses the statistical frameworks, methodological sources of error, and best practices for quantifying and interpreting uncertainty in divergence time estimates, with specific consideration of prokaryotic systems. The challenge is particularly pronounced in microbial evolution where elevated rate heterogeneity across lineages violates the assumption of a universal molecular clock [5]. Research demonstrates that substitution rates can vary by orders of magnitude across bacterial taxa, with endosymbionts exhibiting rates up to four-fold higher than free-living relatives [5]. This guide provides researchers with the analytical framework necessary to contextualize their divergence time estimates within these biological realities.

Statistical Foundations of Divergence Time Uncertainty

The Lognormal Distribution of Time Estimates

Divergence time estimates do not follow normal distributions; they are inherently right-skewed and are more accurately modeled by lognormal distributions [103]. This skewness arises because time estimates have a natural lower bound (zero) but no upper bound within the studied time-frame, creating an asymmetrical distribution where arithmetic means consistently overestimate the true divergence time [103].

Table 1: Properties of Arithmetic vs. Geometric Means for Divergence Time Estimation

Property	Arithmetic Mean	Geometric Mean
Best Use Case	Normal distributions	Lognormal distributions
Effect on Estimate	Upward bias (up to 35% in simulations) [103]	Reduced bias
Confidence Intervals	Symmetrical (inappropriate)	Asymmetrical (appropriate)
Calculation	Sum of values divided by number of samples	nth root of the product of n values
Recommendation	Avoid for divergence times	Use for divergence times

For a set of n time estimates (t1, t2, ..., tn), the geometric mean is calculated as the nth root of their product: (t1 × t2 × ... × tn)^(1/n). This approach provides a more accurate central tendency for divergence times and should be reported alongside the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) intervals in Bayesian analyses [103].

Multiple methodological factors contribute to uncertainty in divergence time estimates:

• Rate Variation Across Lineages: Violations of the molecular clock assumption introduce substantial uncertainty [5]. Studies of 16S rRNA evolution in endosymbionts reveal rate variations of 0.025% to 0.091% per million years across bacterial lineages [5].
• Calibration Point Uncertainty: Fossil calibrations or other external time constraints have associated errors that propagate through analyses [103] [104].
• Gene-Specific Rate Variation: Different genes evolve at different rates, with nonsynonymous sites in free-living bacteria evolving 25 times slower than synonymous sites, while this ratio drops to 10:1 in obligate symbionts [5].
• Model Misspecification: Incorrect models of sequence evolution or rate heterogeneity can bias results [105].
• Insufficient Data: Limited taxonomic sampling or few loci reduce precision [103].

Methodological Approaches for Uncertainty Assessment

Computational Methods for Divergence Time Estimation

Table 2: Comparison of Molecular Dating Methods

Method	Key Features	Uncertainty Handling	Computational Efficiency
RelTime	Estimates relative times without assuming a specific model of rate variation; does not require clock calibrations [105]	Uses local rate constancy to estimate relative node times with confidence intervals from curvature method or bootstrap [105]	1,000x faster than Bayesian methods for large datasets (>400 taxa) [105]
Bayesian MCMC (e.g., BEAST2)	Uses fossil calibrations with uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock models [104]	Provides posterior probability distributions for parameters; 95% HPD intervals represent uncertainty [104]	Computationally intensive; requires convergence assessment using effective sample sizes (ESS > 200) [104]
Geometric Mean Approach	Transform time estimates to log scale before calculating means and confidence intervals [103]	Produces asymmetrical confidence intervals that better represent true uncertainty [103]	Simple calculation; can be applied to outputs from various methods

Experimental Protocol: Bayesian Divergence Time Estimation

For researchers implementing these analyses, the following protocol outlines the critical steps:

• Data Preparation: Assemble sequence alignments and fossil calibration information. For prokaryotic studies, this may include 16S rRNA sequences or conserved protein-coding genes [6].

• Clock Model Selection: Implement an uncorrelated lognormal relaxed clock model to account for rate variation among lineages [104]. The discretized lognormal distribution in BEAST2's Optimized Relaxed Clock model is recommended for computational feasibility [104].

• Calibration Strategy: Apply fossil calibrations as internal node constraints with appropriate prior distributions. For prokaryotes lacking fossils, use horizontal gene transfer events, endosymbiont-host co-divergence, or geological events as calibration points [5].

• MCMC Execution: Run multiple Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains for sufficient generations (typically 10-100 million) to achieve adequate sampling of the posterior distribution [104].

• Convergence Assessment: Use Tracer software to evaluate effective sample sizes (ESS > 200) and ensure chain convergence [104].

• Summary Tree Generation: Use TreeAnnotator to produce a maximum clade credibility tree with mean/median node heights and 95% HPD intervals [104].

The entire workflow for divergence time estimation with uncertainty assessment can be visualized as follows:

Special Considerations for Prokaryotic Systems

Challenges in Bacterial Molecular Dating

Prokaryotic systems present unique challenges for divergence time estimation:

• Limited Fossil Record: The virtual absence of diagnostic fossils for bacteria necessitates alternative calibration methods [6] [5].
• High Rate Heterogeneity: Substitution rates vary dramatically across bacterial lineages, with obligate endosymbionts exhibiting significantly elevated rates compared to free-living relatives [5].
• Lateral Gene Transfer: Widespread horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes complicates phylogenetic reconstruction and molecular dating [6].
• Population Genetic Effects: Genetic drift significantly influences substitution accumulation, particularly in pathogens and endosymbionts with reduced effective population sizes [5].

Genomic Solutions for Prokaryotic Dating

Contemporary approaches leverage genomic data to overcome these challenges:

• Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs): Enable inclusion of uncultured microbial diversity in phylogenetic analyses [6].
• Core Genome Phylogenies: Use concatenated sequences of universally conserved genes to improve resolution [6].
• Supertree and Supermatrix Approaches: Combine gene trees or aligned sequences from across the genome [6].
• Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI): Provides measures of genomic divergence for recently diverged lineages [6].

The transition from single-gene to genome-based classification in prokaryotes has fundamentally altered approaches to divergence time estimation, as illustrated in the historical development:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for Divergence Time Estimation

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
BEAST2	Bayesian evolutionary analysis using MCMC sampling	Primary analysis platform for divergence time estimation with relaxed clock models [104]
Tracer	MCMC diagnostics and parameter assessment	Evaluating chain convergence and effective sample sizes [104]
TreeAnnotator	Summary tree generation from posterior tree distribution	Producing maximum clade credibility trees with node age statistics [104]
RelTime	Relative time estimation without strict clock assumptions	Fast analysis of large datasets (>400 taxa) with rate variation [105]
FigTree	Tree visualization and annotation	Displaying time-calibrated trees with confidence intervals [104]
16S rRNA Databases	Reference sequences for phylogenetic placement	Taxonomic classification and phylogenetic framework construction [6]
Core Gene Sets	Universal single-copy genes for genome-based phylogeny	Supertree and supermatrix approaches for deep evolutionary relationships [6]

Biological Interpretation and Reporting Standards

Guidelines for Interpreting Confidence Intervals

When interpreting confidence intervals in divergence time estimates:

• Consider Asymmetry: Recognize that credible intervals are typically asymmetrical, with longer upper tails, reflecting the lognormal distribution of time estimates [103].
• Contextualize with Rate Variation: Account for lineage-specific rate differences, particularly in prokaryotes where lifestyle impacts substitution rates [5].
• Evaluate Calibration Sensitivity: Assess how different calibration schemes affect the posterior intervals through sensitivity analyses.
• Report Geometric Means: Present divergence times using geometric rather than arithmetic means to reduce upward bias [103].
• Communicate Full Uncertainty: Include both the point estimate and the associated interval in biological interpretations.

Common Pitfalls in Uncertainty Interpretation

Researchers should avoid these common errors:

• Overinterpretation of Point Estimates: Placing undue emphasis on mean estimates without considering the full posterior distribution.
• Neglecting Model Fit: Failing to assess whether the chosen model adequately fits the data, leading to inaccurate uncertainty estimates.
• Insufficient MCMC Convergence: Basing conclusions on runs with inadequate sampling (low ESS values) [104].
• Ignoring Rate Heterogeneity: Applying universal molecular clocks to prokaryotic datasets with significant rate variation across lineages [5].

Proper assessment of uncertainty in divergence time estimates requires both statistical sophistication and biological insight, particularly for prokaryotic systems where evolutionary rates exhibit exceptional variation. By implementing the geometric mean approach for summarizing times, employing relaxed clock models that accommodate rate heterogeneity, and properly interpreting asymmetrical confidence intervals, researchers can produce more reliable estimates of evolutionary timescales. As genomic data from diverse microbial lineages continues to accumulate, these rigorous approaches to uncertainty quantification will become increasingly essential for reconstructing the temporal framework of prokaryotic evolution.

The classification of prokaryotic life has undergone a paradigm shift from single-gene analyses to comprehensive genome-based phylogenies. This transition addresses fundamental limitations of traditional 16S rRNA gene sequencing, which often lacks sufficient resolution for precise taxonomic placement, particularly at the species level and below [8]. The emerging discipline of taxogenomics leverages whole-genome data to achieve unprecedented resolution in microbial classification, enabling researchers to clarify ambiguous evolutionary relationships and redefine taxonomic boundaries [20]. This technical guide examines the consistency of genome-based phylogenetic frameworks and their critical applications in microbial systematics, evolutionary biology, and drug development.

The limitations of 16S rRNA are particularly evident in groups like the Mycobacterium genus, where high sequence conservation impedes species differentiation [8], and the Colwelliaceae family, where 16S-based classification has created ambiguous phylogenetic positions that genome-based approaches can resolve [20]. Genome-based taxonomy incorporates multiple quantitative indices and phylogenetic metrics to establish a more robust, standardized classification system capable of reflecting true evolutionary relationships.

Core Principles of Genome-Based Taxonomic Classification

Genome-based taxonomy relies on comprehensive comparisons of genomic sequences to determine evolutionary relationships and establish taxonomic ranks. This approach utilizes several core metrics that provide quantitative measures of genetic relatedness.

Table 1: Core Genomic Metrics for Taxonomic Classification

Metric	Description	Typical Thresholds	Primary Application
Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI)	Percentage of nucleotide identity between homologous regions of two genomes	Species boundary: ~95-96% [20]	Species demarcation
Digital DNA-DNA Hybridization (dDDH)	Computational simulation of laboratory DDNA hybridization	Species boundary: ~70% [20]	Species demarcation
Average Amino Acid Identity (AAI)	Percentage of amino acid identity in homologous coding sequences	Genus boundary: ~74-75% (varies by taxa) [20]	Genus-level classification
Phylogenomic Tree Construction	Inference of evolutionary relationships from multiple conserved genes	Bootstrap support >70-90% for robust clades [8]	Higher-order phylogenetic placement

These metrics form an interconnected framework for taxonomic decisions. ANI and dDDH provide robust measures for species delimitation, while AAI helps define genus-level boundaries, which have been historically challenging to standardize across microbial taxonomy [20]. Phylogenomic trees based on core genes offer evolutionary context for these quantitative measures, enabling a comprehensive classification system.

Experimental Protocols for Genome-Based Phylogenetic Analysis

Genome Sequencing and Assembly

The foundation of robust phylogenetic analysis depends on high-quality genome data. Current approaches utilize both long-read and short-read sequencing technologies to achieve optimal assembly completeness and accuracy.

For complex environmental samples, the mmlong2 workflow has been developed specifically for recovering microbial genomes from highly diverse ecosystems. This protocol includes:

• Deep long-read sequencing (~100 Gbp per sample) using Nanopore technology [106]
• Metagenome assembly followed by polishing and removal of eukaryotic contigs
• Differential coverage binning incorporating read mapping information from multi-sample datasets
• Ensemble binning using multiple binners on the same metagenome
• Iterative binning where the metagenome undergoes multiple binning cycles to maximize recovery [106]

For isolate sequencing, the standard approach involves:

• DNA extraction using commercial kits (e.g., TaKaRa MiniBEST Bacteria Genomic DNA Extraction Kit) [107]
• Quality control assessing DNA purity and integrity
• Whole-genome sequencing on platforms such as Illumina NovaSeq with 150bp paired-end reads [107]
• Genome assembly using tools like Unicycler v0.4.9b [107]
• Quality assessment evaluating completeness and contamination with CheckM v1.0.12 [107]

Phylogenomic Analysis Pipeline

A standardized pipeline for phylogenomic classification ensures consistent and reproducible results:

• Genome Quality Filtering

  • Select only high-quality genomes with >90% completeness and <5% contamination
  • Remove genomes with evidence of excessive horizontal gene transfer

• Ortholog Identification and Alignment

  • Identify single-copy core genes using tools like Roary v3.13.0 or OrthoFinder
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment with MAFFT v7.505 [20]
  • Trim alignments to remove poorly aligned regions

• Phylogenetic Tree Construction

  • Concatenate aligned core genes into a supermatrix
  • Implement maximum-likelihood methods with FastTree v2.1.11 or RAxML [107]
  • Assess branch support with bootstrap analysis (1000 replicates) [8]
  • Apply appropriate evolutionary models (e.g., GTR) [107]

• Taxonomic Classification

  • Calculate genome-based indices (ANI, AAI, dDDH) using fastANI [107] and comparable tools
  • Compare values against established thresholds for taxonomic rank assignment
  • Integrate phylogenetic placement with quantitative indices for final classification

Case Studies in Genomic Taxonomy Application

Taxonomic Revision of Marine Bacteria

A comprehensive reclassification of the family Colwelliaceae demonstrates the power of genome-based taxonomy to clarify complex phylogenetic relationships. Traditional 16S rRNA gene sequencing supported only six genera, but genome analysis using Average Amino Acid Identity (AAI) revealed genus-level thresholds of 74.07% to 75.11%, enabling expansion to 24 genera through the re-evaluation of 47 species [20]. This revision established a more natural classification reflecting true evolutionary relationships and ecological adaptations of these psychrophilic marine bacteria.

Resolution of Clinical Taxonomic Ambiguities

Genome-based approaches have proven particularly valuable in clinical microbiology, where accurate species identification directly impacts patient care. For Proteus species, conventional automated identification systems frequently misidentify clinical isolates. Whole-genome Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) analysis revealed that 87.5% of strains previously identified as P. columbae actually belong to Proteus genomosp. 6, clarifying the true prevalence and clinical significance of this emerging pathogen [107].

Enhanced Viral Genomic Surveillance

Whole genome sequencing has transformed surveillance of viral pathogens, including Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). Multiplex tiling PCR assays enable efficient generation of near-complete RSV genomes, providing superior phylogenetic resolution compared to single-gene analyses. Phylogenetic trees constructed from whole genomes show identical lineage clusters as the commonly used G gene but with enhanced discriminatory power for tracking viral evolution and identifying mutations that may impact vaccine and therapeutic efficacy [108].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Genomic vs. Single-Gene Phylogenetic Approaches

Application Context	16S rRNA/Single-Gene Limitation	Genome-Based Solution	Taxonomic Outcome
Colwelliaceae Classification	Ambiguous phylogenetic positions [20]	AAI thresholds (74.07-75.11%)	6 to 24 genera [20]
Mycobacterium Identification	Limited species differentiation [8]	tuf and hsp65 gene analysis	Superior species resolution [8]
Proteus Clinical Isolation	Misidentification by automated systems [107]	Whole-genome ANI analysis	Correct assignment to Proteus genomosp. 6 [107]
RSV Genomic Surveillance	Partial genetic profile from G gene [108]	Whole genome phylogenetic analysis	Enhanced discrimination of lineages [108]

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of genome-based phylogenetic classification requires both laboratory reagents and bioinformatic resources.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Genome-Based Phylogenetic Studies

Category	Specific Product/Tool	Function/Application
DNA Extraction	TaKaRa MiniBEST Bacterial Genomic DNA Extraction Kit [107]	High-quality DNA preparation for sequencing
Quality Assessment	Synergy HTX Multi-Mode Reader [107]	Nucleic acid quantification and quality control
Sequencing Platform	Illumina NovaSeq (PE150) [107]	High-throughput whole-genome sequencing
Long-Read Sequencing	Nanopore Sequencing [106]	Continuous reads for complex assembly
Sequence Assembly	Unicycler v0.4.9b [107]	Hybrid assembly of short and long reads
Metagenome Binning	mmlong2 workflow [106]	MAG recovery from complex environments
Quality Evaluation	CheckM v1.0.12 [107]	Assess genome completeness and contamination
Ortholog Identification	Roary v3.13.0 [107]	Pan-genome analysis and core gene extraction
Sequence Alignment	MAFFT v7.505 [20]	Multiple sequence alignment
Phylogenetic Inference	FastTree v2.1.11 [107]	Maximum-likelihood tree construction
Genomic Indices	fastANI [107]	Average Nucleotide Identity calculation
Taxonomic Classification	GTDB-Tk [107]	Genome-based taxonomic assignment

Technical Validation and Consistency Assessment

The consistency of genome-based phylogenies must be rigorously validated through multiple complementary approaches. Concatenated core gene phylogenies should demonstrate congruence with trees constructed from individual marker genes, with strong bootstrap support (>70%) for key nodes [8]. Genomic indices (ANI, AAI) must correlate strongly with phylogenetic placement, creating a cohesive classification system where quantitative thresholds align with monophyletic clades [20].

Potential sources of inconsistency in genome-based phylogenies include:

• Horizontal gene transfer events that create conflicting signals for specific genes
• Variable evolutionary rates across taxa that may impact branch length estimation
• Incomplete lineage sorting that produces discordant gene histories
• Technical artifacts from assembly errors or contamination [106]

Mitigation strategies incorporate:

• Consensus approaches using large sets of core genes to overcome individual gene anomalies
• Careful quality control including checks for contamination and completeness [107]
• Multiple phylogenetic methods to confirm topological stability
• Integration of phenotypic data where available to validate genomic predictions

Genome-based phylogenetic classification represents a transformative advancement in microbial systematics, providing a consistent, high-resolution framework for taxonomic assignment. The integration of multiple genomic indices with comprehensive phylogenomic analysis has addressed fundamental limitations of single-gene approaches, enabling more accurate and natural classifications that reflect true evolutionary relationships.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on:

• Standardized taxonomic thresholds across diverse microbial groups
• Integration of metagenomic data from uncultured microorganisms [106]
• Automated classification pipelines with continuous updating mechanisms
• Expanded reference databases incorporating diverse environmental lineages [106]
• Integration of functional genomic data to complement phylogenetic placement

As genomic sequencing becomes increasingly accessible, genome-based taxonomy will continue to refine our understanding of prokaryotic diversity, with significant implications for microbial ecology, clinical diagnostics, and drug development. The consistency of genome-based phylogenies establishes them as the gold standard for prokaryotic classification, providing an essential framework for exploring the microbial world.

The reconstruction of a comprehensive Tree of Life (ToL) represents one of the most ambitious goals in evolutionary biology, with profound implications for understanding biodiversity, tracking pathogen evolution, and discovering novel biological mechanisms. This endeavor faces significant computational and methodological challenges, primarily due to the fragmented nature of published phylogenetic data. Individual timetrees typically cover narrow taxonomic groups with minimal species overlap, making integration into a unified structure exceptionally difficult. This case study examines a novel chronological supertree algorithm (Chrono-STA) that leverages temporal data from molecular timetrees to overcome these limitations, with particular relevance for prokaryotic classification where evolutionary clocks provide critical phylogenetic signals. We present detailed protocols, performance benchmarks, and visualization tools to enable researchers to apply these advanced methods in their own genomic investigations.

The Fundamental Challenge: Fragmented Phylogenetic Data

Molecular phylogenetics has revolutionized our understanding of evolutionary relationships, yet the published literature reveals a deeply fragmented phylogenetic landscape. Analyses of the TimeTree database, which curates over 4,000 published timetrees, demonstrate that the median number of species per phylogeny is only 25, with each species appearing in a median of just one timetree (approximately 0.02% of the sample) [109]. Consequently, the average number of species common between any two phylogenies is less than 1.0, creating a substantial data integration challenge for building comprehensive trees [109].

This fragmentation stems from both practical and biological factors. Most published phylogenies are produced by taxon specialists focusing on specific families or genera, leveraging their organismal expertise [109]. From a technical perspective, optimal genetic markers and evolutionary models vary considerably across taxonomic groups—loci that provide strong phylogenetic signals in some taxa may be uninformative or misleading in others [109]. The problem is particularly acute in prokaryotic classification, where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) creates complex evolutionary networks that complicate tree-based representations [80].

Existing supertree methods face significant limitations with such sparsely overlapping data. Approaches like ASTRAL-III, ASTRID, Asteroid, Clann, and FastRFS—designed primarily for gene tree reconciliation—struggle to recover correct topologies when taxonomic overlap is minimal [109]. As illustrated in Figure 2, these methods failed to reconstruct the true evolutionary relationships from five input timetrees with limited species overlap, highlighting the need for novel approaches specifically designed for species-level integration with minimal shared taxa [109].

Chrono-STA: A Novel Algorithm for Temporal Integration

Core Methodology and Innovation

The Chrono-STA algorithm introduces a fundamentally new approach to supertree construction by utilizing node ages from published molecular timetrees as the primary integrating factor. Unlike methods that rely on topological congruence or impute missing nodal distances, Chrono-STA operates through an iterative clustering process based directly on divergence times [109].

The algorithm's workflow proceeds as follows:

• Pair Identification: Across all input timetrees, identify the pair of species or clusters with the shortest divergence time
• Cluster Formation: Merge the identified pairs into new composite taxonomic units
• Back-propagation: Propagate the newly formed clusters back to all input trees, enhancing their information content
• Iteration: Repeat the process iteratively until all taxa are incorporated into a single supertree

This approach differs fundamentally from existing tools like the Hierarchical Average Linkage (HAL) method, which requires a phylogenetic backbone (e.g., NCBI taxonomy) and often introduces polytomies when input trees conflict with this backbone [109]. Chrono-STA requires no such backbone, avoiding induced topological conflicts while handling the sparse taxonomic overlap characteristic of empirical timetree collections.

Experimental Protocol for Algorithm Implementation

Input Data Requirements and Preparation

• Data Collection: Gather published molecular timetrees with node ages scaled to time
• Format Standardization: Convert all trees to a common format (e.g., Newick) with divergence times annotated
• Taxonomic Harmonization: Resolve taxonomic discrepancies using a standardized nomenclature reference
• Metadata Extraction: Compile node ages, confidence intervals, and branch length data

Implementation Workflow

• Tree Parsing: Parse input trees to extract topological relationships and nodal ages
• Distance Matrix Construction: For each tree, construct a matrix of divergence times between all taxon pairs
• Cluster Initialization: Begin with all species as separate clusters
• Iterative Merging: Identify closest pairs across all trees, merge clusters, and update matrices
• Topology Construction: Build supertree topology from the sequence of cluster mergers
• Branch Length Estimation: Calculate branch lengths using averaged divergence times from source trees

Validation and Benchmarking

• Simulated Datasets: Generate phylogenies with known topologies and divergence times
• Performance Metrics: Calculate Robinson-Foulds distances, node age correlations, and topological error rates
• Comparison Tests: Evaluate against established methods (ASTRAL, HAL, etc.) using standardized datasets

Figure 1: Chrono-STA Algorithm Workflow. The process iteratively merges closest taxa based on divergence times and back-propagates clusters to source trees.

Performance Benchmarks and Validation

Comparative Analysis with Simulated Data

In controlled simulations using phylogenies with known topologies, Chrono-STA demonstrated remarkable accuracy in combining timetrees with minimal taxonomic overlap. As shown in Table 1, the algorithm successfully reconstructed the correct supertree from five input trees with limited species representation where all established methods failed [109].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Supertree Methods on Simulated Data with Minimal Taxon Overlap

Method	Input Type	Strategy	Recovers Correct Topology	Handles Limited Overlap
Chrono-STA	Timetrees	Temporal clustering with back-propagation	Yes	Yes
ASTRAL-III	Gene trees	Quartet reconciliation	No	No
ASTRID	Gene trees	Distance matrix imputation	No	No
Asteroid	Gene trees	Distance matrix imputation	No	No
Clann	Species trees	Matrix scoring	No	No
FastRFS	Species trees	Robinson-Foulds minimization	No	No

The algorithm's performance advantage stems from its direct use of temporal information rather than relying solely on topological signals. This approach remains robust even when input trees share few common taxa, as the chronological dimension provides a universal scaling factor independent of taxonomic sampling [109].

Empirical Validation with Published Timetrees

When applied to empirical datasets, Chrono-STA successfully integrated timetrees from diverse taxonomic groups including mammals, birds, and reptiles. The algorithm maintained high topological accuracy while preserving the temporal scaling of divergence events, enabling the construction of a supertree containing thousands of species from hundreds of source phylogenies [109].

For prokaryotic applications, the method shows particular promise in addressing the "grouping problem" in bacterial taxonomy. Research has revealed a phase-transition relationship between sequence-based clocks and gene order-based clocks, providing an objective criterion for delineating taxonomic groups [80]. This relationship exhibits a consistent pattern where closely related species show a linear correlation between mutation and rearrangement rates, with a sharp transition at genus boundaries [80].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Timetree Construction and Integration

Resource	Function	Application Context
Chrono-STA Algorithm	Integrates timetrees with minimal taxon overlap	Supertree construction from published phylogenies
RelTime with Dated Tips (RTDT)	Fast divergence time estimation	Pathogen timetree inference from heterochronous sequences
varKoding	Species identification from low-coverage genomes	DNA barcoding using neural networks and genomic signatures
Synteny Index (SI)	Measures evolutionary distance based on gene order	Prokaryotic classification and HGT detection
TimeTree Database	Repository of published divergence times	Reference for calibration and method validation

Computational Implementation Resources

• MEGA X Software: Implements RTDT method for divergence time estimation with a graphical interface [110]
• varKoding Framework: Neural network-based classification using genomic signature images [111]
• Synteny Index Tools: Calculate gene order conservation and detect HGT events [80]
• Chrono-STA Pipeline: Python implementation for chronological supertree construction [109]

Practical Implementation Notes For researchers applying these methods, several practical considerations enhance success:

• Data Quality: Chrono-STA performance depends on accurate nodal age estimates in source trees
• Taxonomic Resolution: The algorithm works best with well-curated taxonomic identifiers
• Computational Requirements: Chrono-STA has modest computing needs compared to Bayesian methods
• Visualization: Output supertrees can be visualized using standard phylogenetics tools

Implications for Prokaryotic Phylogenetic Classification

Molecular Clocks in Microbial Evolution

Prokaryotic phylogenetics presents unique challenges due to pervasive horizontal gene transfer, which creates complex evolutionary networks rather than strictly divergent trees. The discovery of novel molecular clocks in prokaryotes offers promising avenues for resolving these complexities [70]. While circadian clocks were long thought to be restricted to eukaryotes, they are now known to exist in cyanobacteria, with growing evidence suggesting wider distribution across bacterial and archaeal domains [70].

Research into the relationship between sequence-based clocks (point mutations) and gene order-based clocks (genome rearrangements) has revealed fundamental patterns with taxonomic implications. Across closely related species, these two clocks maintain a surprisingly constant ratio—a point mutation to HGT (PMTH) ratio—suggesting they "tick" at proportional rates within genera [80]. This relationship undergoes a dramatic phase transition beyond genus boundaries, providing an objective criterion for taxonomic delineation [80].

Applications in Pathogen Research and Drug Discovery

The ability to construct accurate, time-scaled prokaryotic phylogenies has significant implications for medical research and therapeutic development. Timetrees of pathogenic strains reveal the temporal history of disease spread and strain emergence, informing surveillance and intervention strategies [110]. Methods like RTDT enable rapid dating of pathogen evolution without computationally intensive Bayesian approaches, making large-scale analyses feasible for outbreak investigation [110].

For drug discovery, evolutionary relationships guide the search for novel molecular mechanisms and antimicrobial targets. The identification of clock-controlled microorganisms in prokaryotic groups such as anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria, methanogenic archaea, methanotrophs, and sulfate-reducing bacteria offers opportunities for biotechnology and medical research application [70].

Figure 2: Dual Evolutionary Clocks in Prokaryotes. The relationship between sequence and rearrangement clocks shows a phase transition at genus boundaries.

Future Directions and Implementation Recommendations

The integration of disparate timetrees through Chrono-STA represents a significant advance in phylogenetic synthesis, but several frontiers remain for methodological development. Future research directions include:

Methodological Enhancements

• Uncertainty Propagation: Developing approaches to incorporate confidence intervals from source trees into supertree node ages
• HGT Accommodation: Adapting algorithms to handle complex evolutionary patterns in prokaryotes
• Automated Curation: Implementing natural language processing to extract timetrees from published literature
• Real-time Updating: Creating workflows for continuous supertree updating as new phylogenies are published

Practical Implementation Guidelines For research teams implementing chronological supertree approaches:

• Start with Well-sampled Groups: Initial validation should focus on taxa with extensive phylogenetic coverage
• Implement Multiple Methods: Compare Chrono-STA results with other supertree approaches where possible
• Validate with Independent Data: Use morphological, ecological, or fossil data to assess topological accuracy
• Iterate and Refine: Update supertrees as new temporal data becomes available

The continued development and application of temporal integration methods like Chrono-STA will progressively illuminate the deep branches of the Tree of Life, with particular value for resolving the complex evolutionary history of prokaryotes. By leveraging both established sequence-based clocks and emerging gene order-based evolutionary signals, researchers can construct increasingly comprehensive and accurate phylogenies that support diverse applications across evolutionary biology, conservation science, and biomedical research.

Molecular dating has become an indispensable component of modern prokaryotic systematics, providing a temporal framework for understanding the evolutionary history of Bacteria and Archaea. The field of microbial classification has undergone a profound transformation, moving from a phenotype-based foundation to a sequence-based phylogenetic framework [26] [6]. This paradigm shift began with the pioneering work of Woese, who established the small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S/18S rRNA) as a molecular chronometer capable of inferring evolutionary relationships across the tree of life [26] [6]. The 16S rRNA gene provided both an "hour and minute hand" to measure ancient and more recent evolutionary relationships, revolutionizing our understanding of microbial diversity and leading to the discovery of the third domain of life, Archaea [26].

The unprecedented availability of whole-genome sequences has further accelerated this transformation, enabling taxonomy to transition from a 16S rRNA-based to a genome-based classification system [6]. Genome-based classification affords greater resolution than the 16S rRNA gene (which represents only 0.05% of an average 3-Mbp prokaryotic genome) for both the most ancient and most recent relationships due to a larger fraction of the genome being used in comparison [6]. As the number of available microbial genomes continues to grow exponentially, particularly those derived from uncultured prokaryotes via metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), robust molecular dating methods have become essential for reconstructing the evolutionary timeline of prokaryotic diversification and placing these newly discovered lineages within a temporal context [63] [6].

Methodological Landscape: Molecular Dating Approaches

The computational burden associated with parameter-rich Bayesian molecular dating methods has prompted the development of rapid alternatives that can handle massive phylogenomic datasets while providing reliable divergence time estimates. Current methods can be broadly categorized into three groups: Bayesian approaches, penalized likelihood, and relative rate frameworks.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Molecular Dating Methods for Prokaryotic Phylogenomics

Method	Implementation	Theoretical Basis	Rate Variation Assumption	Computational Demand	Key Strengths
Bayesian Relaxed Clock	BEAST, MCMCTree, PhyloBayes	Bayesian MCMC sampling with relaxed clock models	Autocorrelated or uncorrelated	High (days to weeks)	Most comprehensive uncertainty quantification; flexible calibration models
Penalized Likelihood (PL)	treePL	Likelihood with penalty function for rate changes between adjacent branches	Autocorrelation of evolutionary rates	Moderate (hours to days)	Handles large phylogenies; cross-validation for smoothing parameter optimization
Relative Rate Framework (RRF)	RelTime (MEGA)	Relative rates for ancestral and descendant lineages	Minimizes rate differences between sister lineages	Low (minutes to hours)	No cross-validation needed; allows calibration densities; fastest computation

Performance Evaluation of Rapid Dating Methods

A comprehensive assessment of 23 empirical phylogenomic datasets revealed important performance characteristics between these methods [49]. The Relative Rate Framework (RRF) implemented in RelTime was computationally faster and generally provided node age estimates statistically equivalent to Bayesian divergence times, being more than 100 times faster than treePL [49]. Penalized Likelihood (PL) time estimates consistently exhibited low levels of uncertainty but required careful optimization of the smoothing parameter (λ) through cross-validation procedures [49].

When compared to Bayesian approaches, which represent the gold standard in molecular dating, RRF demonstrated strong correlation with Bayesian estimates across multiple datasets. Linear regressions of RelTime estimates against Bayesian divergence times showed high coefficients of determination (R²), indicating that the fast method captured similar temporal patterns to the more computationally intensive Bayesian approach [49]. This makes RRF particularly suitable for large-scale phylogenomic analyses where computational efficiency is essential.

Experimental Protocols for Prokaryotic Molecular Dating

Genome Sequencing and Quality Assessment

The foundation of reliable molecular dating begins with high-quality genome sequences. For cultivated prokaryotes, DNA extraction followed by whole-genome sequencing using either short-read (Illumina) or long-read (PacBio, Oxford Nanopore) technologies is standard [63]. For uncultivated prokaryotes, metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) are recovered through shotgun sequencing of environmental DNA, followed by binning contigs based on sequence composition and abundance patterns [63] [6].

Quality assessment is critical before phylogenetic analysis. For MAGs, the community standards include:

• Completeness: Estimated using single-copy core genes, with >90% recommended for high-quality genomes
• Contamination: Assessed by the presence of multiple single-copy genes, with <5% recommended
• Strain heterogeneity: Measured by examining nucleotide sequence heterogeneity in single-copy genes [63]

Recent initiatives such as the SeqCode (Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data) provide formal standards for genome quality that must be adhered to when naming uncultivated prokaryotes based on DNA sequence [63] [112].

Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Tree Construction

For molecular dating analyses, a robust phylogenetic tree is essential. The recommended workflow includes:

• Marker gene selection: Identify a set of conserved, vertically inherited single-copy genes. Common sets include those used by the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) or custom selections based on the taxonomic group under study [6]
• Sequence alignment: Align amino acid or nucleotide sequences for each marker gene using tools such as MAFFT or MUSCLE
• Alignment trimming: Remove poorly aligned regions using Gblocks or trimAl
• Concatenation: Combine aligned markers into a supermatrix
• Model selection: Determine the best-fit substitution model using ModelTest or ProtTest
• Tree inference: Construct a maximum likelihood tree using IQ-TREE or RAxML, or a Bayesian tree using MrBayes [6]

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Prokaryotic Molecular Dating

Reagent/Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Molecular Dating Workflow
Sequence Databases	INSDC, GTDB, SILVA, RDP	Provide reference sequences for phylogenetic placement and taxonomic identification
Genome Quality Assessment Tools	CheckM, BUSCO	Assess completeness and contamination of genomes and MAGs
Multiple Sequence Alignment Tools	MAFFT, MUSCLE, Clustal Omega	Generate alignments of marker genes or whole genomes
Phylogenetic Inference Software	IQ-TREE, RAxML, MrBayes	Construct phylogenetic trees from sequence alignments
Molecular Dating Programs	BEAST, MCMCTree, treePL, RelTime	Estimate divergence times with various clock models
Taxonomic Classification Resources	SeqCode, ICNP, LPSN	Provide nomenclatural frameworks for naming prokaryotic taxa

Molecular Dating Implementation

The implementation of molecular dating requires careful consideration of calibration points and method-specific parameters:

For Bayesian dating with BEAST or MCMCTree:

• Select appropriate clock model (strict, relaxed, uncorrelated)
• Define tree prior (birth-death, coalescent)
• Set calibration priors based on fossil evidence or biogeographic events
• Run multiple MCMC chains to ensure convergence
• Assess effective sample sizes (ESS > 200) for all parameters [49]

For Penalized Likelihood with treePL:

• Estimate branch lengths with maximum likelihood
• Perform cross-validation to optimize smoothing parameter
• Run analysis with 'thorough' option for best optimization
• Generate confidence intervals through bootstrap resampling [49]

For Relative Rate Framework with RelTime:

• Estimate branch lengths in substitutions per site
• Provide calibration information as probability distributions
• Calculate confidence intervals analytically using built-in methods [49]

Integration with Prokaryotic Classification Frameworks

Molecular dating provides essential temporal context for the classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. The emerging consensus emphasizes a genome-based taxonomy that reflects evolutionary relationships, with the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) providing a standardized framework [26] [6]. The recent development of the SeqCode represents a transformative advancement for incorporating uncultivated prokaryotes into the formal nomenclature system, allowing DNA sequences to serve as type material [63] [112].

The diagram below illustrates the integrated workflow for prokaryotic molecular dating and taxonomic classification:

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant advances, several challenges remain in prokaryotic molecular dating. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) presents a particular challenge for reconstructing prokaryotic evolutionary history, as different genes within the same genome may have distinct evolutionary histories [41] [113]. While early concerns suggested that HGT might completely obscure the phylogenetic history of prokaryotes, subsequent research has demonstrated that a core set of vertically inherited genes retains sufficient phylogenetic signal to reconstruct organismal relationships [113]. Phylogenomic approaches that leverage concatenated sequences of these conserved marker genes have proven effective in overcoming the noise introduced by HGT [113].

The development of the 2025 revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) aims to address emerging challenges in prokaryotic taxonomy, potentially providing greater accommodation of sequence-based classification [114]. As the number of uncultivated prokaryotes with genome sequences continues to grow, the integration of molecular dating with standardized taxonomic frameworks will be essential for developing a comprehensive timeline of prokaryotic evolution.

Future methodological developments will likely focus on improving the handling of rate variation across the tree, incorporating more complex models of genome evolution, and developing increasingly efficient algorithms capable of handling the next generation of phylogenomic datasets. The continued collaboration between microbiologists, evolutionary biologists, and bioinformaticians will be essential for advancing the field of prokaryotic molecular dating and unraveling the deep evolutionary history of the microbial world.

Conclusion

Molecular chronometers have fundamentally transformed our understanding of prokaryotic evolution, providing a quantitative framework to reconstruct the history of life. The journey from single-gene 16S rRNA analysis to genome-scale phylogenomics has yielded a more robust and detailed Tree of Life, uncovering novel relationships and potential clock systems in diverse bacterial and archaeal groups. For biomedical research, these advances are not merely academic; a reliable phylogenetic framework is essential for tracking the origins and evolution of pathogens, understanding antibiotic resistance gene flow, and systematically exploring microbial dark matter for novel drug leads and biotechnological applications. Future progress hinges on refining clock models to better handle rate variation, innovating calibration strategies in the absence of a conventional fossil record, and scaling computational methods to manage the deluge of genomic data from both cultured and uncultured prokaryotes. The continued integration of molecular chronometry into microbiological research promises to deepen our grasp of microbial evolution and accelerate the translation of phylogenetic insights into clinical and industrial breakthroughs.

References

• 1. Molecular clock [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock]
• 2. Neutrality and Molecular Clocks | Learn Science at Scitable [https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/neutrality-and-molecular-clocks-100492542/]
• 3. The Molecular Clock and Estimating Species Divergence [https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-molecular-clock-and-estimating-species-divergence-41971/]
• 4. Bayesian molecular clock dating of species divergences in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2015.8]
• 5. Inferring clocks when lacking rocks: the variable rates of ... [https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-4-35]
• 6. Prokaryotic taxonomy and nomenclature in the age of big ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-021-00941-x]
• 7. The Molecular Clock in the Evolution of Protein Structures [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31111152/]
• 8. Phylogenetic analysis of prevalent Mycobacterium species ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003269725001423]
• 9. Detecting Episodic Evolution through Bayesian Inference ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37738550/]
• 10. Recent developments in using the molecular decay dating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8247969/]
• 11. Impact of 16S rRNA Gene Sequence Analysis for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC523561/]
• 12. Introduce to 16S rRNA and 16S rRNA Sequencing [https://www.cd-genomics.com/blog/introduce-to-16s-rrna-and-16s-rrna-sequencing/]
• 13. Comparative RNA function analysis reveals high ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10214-3]
• 14. Use of 16S rRNA Gene for Identification of a Broad Range of ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117617]
• 15. RNA 16S - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rna-16s]
• 16. On the limits of 16S rRNA gene-based metagenome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10926695/]
• 17. Advantages and Limitations of 16S rRNA Next-Generation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7602188/]
• 18. 16S rRNA Methodology and Analysis Guide [https://cores.emory.edu/eicc/_includes/documents/sections/resources/16s_methodology_2024-01-24.html]
• 19. Limitations of 16S rRNA sequencing [https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/104655/limitations-of-16s-rrna-sequencing]
• 20. Genome-based classification and phylogenetic revision of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2025.1532186/full]
• 21. Evolutionary origins of self-sustained Kai protein circadian ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59908-7]
• 22. Research team traces evolutionary history of bacterial ... [https://www.ims.ac.jp/en/news/2025/05/0520.html]
• 23. Horizontal transfer of matrix metalloproteinase genes links ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41194257/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=1po-2YHvOZPh8YHjN_AdYjV_tQ916Q1oP0-QuYlLCuTt9zu9iz&fc=None&ff=20251106113557&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 24. Molecular Clock Mechanisms/ Gene-Protein Networks [https://ccb.ucsd.edu/research/molecular-clock-mechanisms.html]
• 25. Principles of Effective Data Visualization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7733875/]
• 26. Prokaryotic taxonomy and nomenclature in the age of big ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8245423/]
• 27. The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/genotype-phenotype/]
• 28. What is a phenotype? History and new developments ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10709-021-00134-6]
• 29. Classification of Bacteria and Archaea: Past, present and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0723202009001258]
• 30. The Prokaryotic Species Concept and Challenges - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558821/]
• 31. Research team traces evolutionary history of bacterial ... [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250520012730.htm]
• 32. The structure of an ancient genotype-phenotype map shaped ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838366/]
• 33. Highways of gene sharing in prokaryotes - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1242295/]
• 34. Augmenting microbial phylogenomic signal with tailored ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64881-2]
• 35. Circadian clock control of ribosome composition promotes ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41160737/]
• 36. Texas A&M Biologists Reveal How the Circadian Clock ... [https://artsci.tamu.edu/biology/updates/how-circadian-clock-controls-protein-synthesis.html]
• 37. Genome-Wide Molecular Clock and Horizontal Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC516599/]
• 38. The Circadian Clock Coordinates Ribosome Biogenesis [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001455]
• 39. Rewinding the Molecular Clock: Looking at Pioneering ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8491155/]
• 40. Genome-Based Microbial Taxonomy Coming of Age - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4888819/]
• 41. GO4genome: A Prokaryotic Phylogeny Based on Genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085772/]
• 42. Phylogeny of Bacterial and Archaeal Genomes Using ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062510]
• 43. A likelihood look at the supermatrix–supertree controversy [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378111908001509]
• 44. Do we still need supertrees? - BMC Biology [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-10-13]
• 45. Human population history revealed by a supertree approach [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29890]
• 46. A Bayesian Supertree Model for Genome-Wide Species ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4851173/]
• 47. Diversity of 23S rRNA Genes within Individual Prokaryotic ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005437]
• 48. Phylogenetic analyses of phylum Actinobacteria based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250813000685]
• 49. Assessing the relative performance of fast molecular dating ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-09030-5]
• 50. Assessing the relative performance of fast molecular dating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9719170/]
• 51. Theoretical Foundation of the RelTime Method for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5995221/]
• 52. R3F: An R package for evolutionary dates, rates, and priors ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05004]
• 53. GitHub - josebarbamontoya/chrono-sta: Supertree construction through the integration of phylogenetic and chronological information (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1571568). [https://github.com/josebarbamontoya/chrono-sta]
• 54. Using the Fossil Record to Evaluate Timetree Timescales [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6871265/]
• 55. Comparison of different strategies for using fossil ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317303044]
• 56. Review: The Timetree of Life [https://ncse.ngo/review-timetree-life]
• 57. A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-4-44]
• 58. Frontiers | Protein based molecular markers provide reliable means to... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00098/full]
• 59. Whole-Genome-Based Phylogeny and Taxonomy for Prokaryotes [https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/56419]
• 60. Editorial: Timetrees: Incorporating fossils and molecules [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.937763/full]
• 61. Studies on Monitoring and Tracking Genetic Resources [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3035216/]
• 62. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing [https://www.cbd.int/access-benefit-sharing]
• 63. A practical guide on environmental genomics for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0723202025000657]
• 64. Towards a Genome-Based Taxonomy for Prokaryotes - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1236649/]
• 65. Editorial: Plant metabolites in drug discovery: the prism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12405360/]
• 66. An integrated widely targeted metabolomics and network ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05503-1]
• 67. Local and relaxed clocks: the best of both worlds - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6034591/]
• 68. An examination of phylogenetic models of substitution rate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2679908/]
• 69. Rates and Rocks: Strengths and Weaknesses of Molecular ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00526/full]
• 70. Towards the discovery of novel molecular clocks in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37330701/]
• 71. Novel non-parametric models to estimate evolutionary rates ... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-014-0163-6]
• 72. Fossil evidence of Archaean life - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1578735/]
• 73. Animal origins: The record from organic microfossils [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282522200191X]
• 74. Construction of a Phylogenetic Tree of Photosynthetic ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070290]
• 75. Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC187805/]
• 76. Detecting horizontal gene transfer: a probabilistic approach [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6395-5]
• 77. quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4166000/]
• 78. Assessing phylogenetic confidence at pandemic scales [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09567-x]
• 79. Rate Evolution across Lineages and Relaxing... Modeling Substitution [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11430275/]
• 80. Relation between two evolutionary clocks reveal new ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8941958/]
• 81. | BEAST Documentation Molecular Clocks [https://beast.community/clocks]
• 82. makes a large difference to age estimates of... Clock model [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-014-0263-3]
• 83. A new pace for molecular clocks [https://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/a-new-pace-for-molecular-clocks]
• 84. Selection and the Model | PLOS Biology Molecular Clock [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040151]
• 85. Should I expect / use a prokaryote-specific substitution ... [https://bioinformatics.stackexchange.com/questions/19198/should-i-expect-use-a-prokaryote-specific-substitution-model-when-building-a-p]
• 86. New substitution models for rooting phylogenetic trees - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4571574/]
• 87. Accurate, scalable, and fully automated inference of species ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12088440/]
• 88. Streamlining genetic analysis for phylogenetic studies [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/01/250123110231.htm]
• 89. A rapid phylogeny-based method for accurate ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/85794]
• 90. Orthology inference at scale with FastOMA [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-024-02552-8]
• 91. Rocks and Clocks: From fossils to genomes [https://www.elisebaugh.com/post/rocks-and-clocks-deciphering-evolutionary-timelines-through-fossils-and-molecular-data]
• 92. Molecular Clocks without Rocks: New Solutions for Old ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168952520301311]
• 93. Quantitative Prediction of Molecular Clock and Ka/Ks at ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2912466/]
• 94. Structural phylogenetics unravels the evolutionary ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-025-01649-8]
• 95. Internal fossil constraints have more effect on the age ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40852374/]
• 96. Assessing Rapid Relaxed-Clock Methods for Phylogenomic Dating - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633771/]
• 97. Improved maximum growth rate prediction from microbial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59558-9]
• 98. Use of 16S rRNA and rpoB Genes as Molecular Markers for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1797146/]
• 99. The overlooked evolutionary dynamics of 16S rRNA ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59667-3]
• 100. SILVA: Silva [https://www.arb-silva.de/]
• 101. Ribosomal expansion segment contributes to translation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40433980/]
• 102. New Insights into the Taxonomy of Bacteria in the Genomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9148247/]
• 103. How to Summarize Estimates of Ancestral Divergence Times [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2614201/]
• 104. Divergence Time Estimation [https://taming-the-beast.org/tutorials/FBD-tutorial/]
• 105. Estimating divergence times in large molecular phylogenies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3511068/]
• 106. Genome-resolved long-read sequencing expands known ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-025-02062-z]
• 107. Genome-based analyses from four clinically-isolated strains ... [https://gutpathogens.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13099-025-00701-8]
• 108. Whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic classification ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12502720/]
• 109. Integrating phylogenies with chronology to assemble the ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1571568/full]
• 110. A new method for inferring timetrees from temporally ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7018096/]
• 111. A composite universal DNA signature for the tree of life [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02752-1]
• 112. Best Practices in Microbiology [https://www.nature.com/collections/fghaecfibg]
• 113. Phylogeny of prokaryotes: does it exist and why should we ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250809001041]
• 114. Preparing the 2025 revision of the International Code ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39879088/]