Literature DB >> 18852109

Dealing with incongruence in phylogenomic analyses.

Nicolas Galtier1, Vincent Daubin.   

Abstract

Incongruence between gene trees is the main challenge faced by phylogeneticists in the genomic era. Incongruence can occur for artefactual reasons, when we fail to recover the correct gene trees, or for biological reasons, when true gene trees are actually distinct from each other, and from the species tree. Horizontal gene transfers (HGTs) between genomes are an important process of bacterial evolution resulting in a substantial amount of phylogenetic conflicts between gene trees. We argue that the (bacterial) species tree is still a meaningful scientific concept even in the case of HGTs, and that reconstructing it is still a valid goal. We tentatively assess the amount of phylogenetic incongruence caused by HGTs in bacteria by comparing bacterial datasets to a metazoan dataset in which transfers are presumably very scarce or absent.We review existing phylogenomic methods and their ability to return to the user, both the vertical (speciation/extinction history) and horizontal (gene transfers) phylogenetic signals.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18852109      PMCID: PMC2607408          DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8436            Impact factor:   6.237


  48 in total

Review 1.  Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree.

Authors:  W F Doolittle
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-06-25       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees.

Authors:  M A Ragan
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 4.286

Review 3.  Plant self-incompatibility in natural populations: a critical assessment of recent theoretical and empirical advances.

Authors:  Vincent Castric; Xavier Vekemans
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  Does a tree-like phylogeny only exist at the tips in the prokaryotes?

Authors:  Christopher J Creevey; David A Fitzpatrick; Gayle K Philip; Rhoda J Kinsella; Mary J O'Connell; Melissa M Pentony; Simon A Travers; Mark Wilkinson; James O McInerney
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia.

Authors:  Hervé Philippe; Nicolas Lartillot; Henner Brinkmann
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 16.240

6.  Phylogenetic analysis of the complete genome sequence of Encephalitozoon cuniculi supports the fungal origin of microsporidia and reveals a high frequency of fast-evolving genes.

Authors:  Fabienne Thomarat; Christian P Vivarès; Manolo Gouy
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.395

7.  Relationships between gene trees and species trees.

Authors:  P Pamilo; M Nei
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 16.240

8.  Evolutionary relationship of DNA sequences in finite populations.

Authors:  F Tajima
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice.

Authors:  J D Thompson; D G Higgins; T J Gibson
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1994-11-11       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: the case of the gamma-Proteobacteria.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Lerat; Vincent Daubin; Nancy A Moran
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  67 in total

1.  Split-based computation of majority-rule supertrees.

Authors:  Anne Kupczok
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 3.260

2.  The practice of classification and the theory of evolution, and what the demise of Charles Darwin's tree of life hypothesis means for both of them.

Authors:  W Ford Doolittle
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  The conflict between horizontal gene transfer and the safeguard of identity: origin of meiotic sexuality.

Authors:  Nicolas Glansdorff; Ying Xu; Bernard Labedan
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 4.  DNA-based methods for eriophyoid mite studies: review, critical aspects, prospects and challenges.

Authors:  Maria Navajas; Denise Navia
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.132

Review 5.  Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges.

Authors:  Luis Boto
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Exploration of Plastid Phylogenomic Conflict Yields New Insights into the Deep Relationships of Leguminosae.

Authors:  Rong Zhang; Yin-Huan Wang; Jian-Jun Jin; Gregory W Stull; Anne Bruneau; Domingos Cardoso; Luciano Paganucci De Queiroz; Michael J Moore; Shu-Dong Zhang; Si-Yun Chen; Jian Wang; De-Zhu Li; Ting-Shuang Yi
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 15.683

Review 7.  Trees in the web of life.

Authors:  Kristen S Swithers; J Peter Gogarten; Gregory P Fournier
Journal:  J Biol       Date:  2009-07-13

8.  Search for a 'Tree of Life' in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest.

Authors:  Pere Puigbò; Yuri I Wolf; Eugene V Koonin
Journal:  J Biol       Date:  2009-07-13

9.  Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things.

Authors:  Eric Bapteste; Maureen A O'Malley; Robert G Beiko; Marc Ereshefsky; J Peter Gogarten; Laura Franklin-Hall; François-Joseph Lapointe; John Dupré; Tal Dagan; Yan Boucher; William Martin
Journal:  Biol Direct       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 4.540

10.  Fine-scale phylogenetic discordance across the house mouse genome.

Authors:  Michael A White; Cécile Ané; Colin N Dewey; Bret R Larget; Bret A Payseur
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 5.917

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.