Literature DB >> 12167360

Ancient phylogenetic relationships.

Simonetta Gribaldo1, Hervé Philippe.   

Abstract

Traditional views on deep evolutionary events have been seriously challenged over the last few years, following the identification of major pitfalls affecting molecular phylogeny reconstruction. Here we describe the principally encountered artifacts, notably long branch attraction, and their causes (i.e., difference in evolutionary rates, mutational saturation, compositional biases). Additional difficulties due to phenomena of biological nature (i.e., lateral gene transfer, recombination, hidden paralogy) are also discussed. Moreover, contrary to common beliefs, we show that the use of rare genomic events can also be misleading and should be treated with the same caution as standard molecular phylogeny. The universal tree of life, as described in most textbooks, is partly affected by tree reconstruction artifacts, e.g. (i) the bacterial rooting of the universal tree of life; (ii) the early emergence of amitochondriate lineages in eukaryotic phylogenies; and (iii) the position of hyperthermophilic taxa in bacterial phylogenies. We present an alternative view of this tree, based on recent evidence obtained from reanalyses of ancient data sets and from novel analyses of large combination of genes. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12167360     DOI: 10.1006/tpbi.2002.1593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Popul Biol        ISSN: 0040-5809            Impact factor:   1.570


  73 in total

1.  The consistent phylogenetic signal in genome trees revealed by reducing the impact of noise.

Authors:  Bas E Dutilh; Martijn A Huynen; William J Bruno; Berend Snel
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Investment in rapid growth shapes the evolutionary rates of essential proteins.

Authors:  Sara Vieira-Silva; Marie Touchon; Sophie S Abby; Eduardo P C Rocha
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Phylogenetic framework and molecular signatures for the main clades of the phylum Actinobacteria.

Authors:  Beile Gao; Radhey S Gupta
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 11.056

Review 4.  The origin of eukaryotes and their relationship with the Archaea: are we at a phylogenomic impasse?

Authors:  Simonetta Gribaldo; Anthony M Poole; Vincent Daubin; Patrick Forterre; Céline Brochier-Armanet
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 60.633

5.  Broadly sampled multigene analyses yield a well-resolved eukaryotic tree of life.

Authors:  Laura Wegener Parfrey; Jessica Grant; Yonas I Tekle; Erica Lasek-Nesselquist; Hilary G Morrison; Mitchell L Sogin; David J Patterson; Laura A Katz
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 15.683

6.  Automated removal of noisy data in phylogenomic analyses.

Authors:  Vadim V Goremykin; Svetlana V Nikiforova; Olaf R P Bininda-Emonds
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 7.  Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution.

Authors:  Thomas Cavalier-Smith
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Prokaryotic phylogenies inferred from protein structural domains.

Authors:  Eric J Deeds; Hooman Hennessey; Eugene I Shakhnovich
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  What does the microsporidian E. cuniculi tell us about the origin of the eukaryotic cell?

Authors:  Alexei Fedorov; Hyman Hartman
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  Different clustering of genomes across life using the A-T-C-G and degenerate R-Y alphabets: early and late signaling on genome evolution?

Authors:  V Kirzhner; A Paz; Z Volkovich; E Nevo; A Korol
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2007-03-19       Impact factor: 2.395

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.