Literature DB >> 16826322

Testing for differentiation of microbial communities using phylogenetic methods: accounting for uncertainty of phylogenetic inference and character state mapping.

Ryan T Jones1, Andrew P Martin.   

Abstract

Comparative analyses of microbial communities increasingly involve the assay of 16S rRNA (or other gene) sequences from environmental DNA. Determining whether the composition of two or more communities differ in their phylogenetic composition involves testing for covariation between phylogeny and community type. This approach requires estimating the phylogenetic relationships among all sampled sequences and assessing whether the distribution of sequences among communities differs from the null expectation that sequences are randomly distributed. One method developed for implementing the phylogeny-based test of differentiation, referred to as the Phylogenetic test, relies on a single estimate of the phylogeny. However, for most data sets, many alternative phylogenetic trees provide statistically equivalent descriptions of the data. Because the actual phylogeny is unknown, phylogenetic tests of differentiation among microbial communities must account for phylogenetic uncertainty. In this article, we evaluate bootstrapping and Bayesian phylogenetic methods when implementing the Phylogenetic test using parsimony to map character states, and we investigate the effects of character mapping uncertainty by using a Bayesian approach to stochastically map character states on trees. Our approaches incorporate uncertainty into the tests of two closely related null hypotheses: (1) populations are panmictic, and (2) identical communities existed in both environments over the course of evolutionary history. We use two data sets previously implemented in tests for community differentiation: nitrite reductase genes sampled from marsh and upland soils and 16S rDNA sequences sampled from the human mouth and gut. We show that accounting for phylogenetic and mapping uncertainties can drastically affect results when implementing the Phylogenetic test. Accounting for phylogenetic and character mapping uncertainty provides a more conservative and robust test of covariation between phylogeny and environment when comparing microbial communities using DNA sequences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16826322     DOI: 10.1007/s00248-006-9002-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Microb Ecol        ISSN: 0095-3628            Impact factor:   4.552


  33 in total

1.  Bacterial diversity within the human subgingival crevice.

Authors:  I Kroes; P W Lepp; D A Relman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-12-07       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies.

Authors:  J P Huelsenbeck; B Rannala; J P Masly
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-06-30       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Arthropod phylogeny based on eight molecular loci and morphology.

Authors:  G Giribet; G D Edgecombe; W C Wheeler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Mapping mutations on phylogenies.

Authors:  Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  Integration of microbial ecology and statistics: a test to compare gene libraries.

Authors:  Patrick D Schloss; Bret R Larget; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Identification of candidate periodontal pathogens and beneficial species by quantitative 16S clonal analysis.

Authors:  Purnima S Kumar; Ann L Griffen; Melvin L Moeschberger; Eugene J Leys
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  NULL MODELS FOR THE NUMBER OF EVOLUTIONARY STEPS IN A CHARACTER ON A PHYLOGENETIC TREE.

Authors:  Wayne P Maddison; Montgomery Slatkin
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Molecular systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): a comparison of Parsimony, Likelihood, and Bayesian approaches.

Authors:  Adam D Leaché; Tod W Reeder
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 15.683

9.  Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence.

Authors:  Michael E Alfaro; Stefan Zoller; François Lutzoni
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Comparison of diversities and compositions of bacterial populations inhabiting natural forest soils.

Authors:  Evelyn Hackl; Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern; Levente Bodrossy; Angela Sessitsch
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.792

View more
  5 in total

1.  Fumarole-supported islands of biodiversity within a hyperarid, high-elevation landscape on Socompa Volcano, Puna de Atacama, Andes.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Costello; Stephan R P Halloy; Sasha C Reed; Preston Sowell; Steven K Schmidt
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Phylogenetic Relationships and Functional Genes: Distribution of a Gene (mnxG) encoding a putative manganese-oxidizing enzyme in Bacillus species.

Authors:  Lisa E Mayhew; Elizabeth D Swanner; Andy P Martin; Alexis S Templeton
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  A comprehensive survey of soil acidobacterial diversity using pyrosequencing and clone library analyses.

Authors:  Ryan T Jones; Michael S Robeson; Christian L Lauber; Micah Hamady; Rob Knight; Noah Fierer
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 10.302

Review 4.  Species divergence and the measurement of microbial diversity.

Authors:  Catherine A Lozupone; Rob Knight
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Rev       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 16.408

Review 5.  The Ecology of Acidobacteria: Moving beyond Genes and Genomes.

Authors:  Anna M Kielak; Cristine C Barreto; George A Kowalchuk; Johannes A van Veen; Eiko E Kuramae
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 5.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.