Luz B Gilbert1, Lee Chae, Takao Kasuga, John W Taylor. 1. Laboratoire de Recherche en Sciences Végétales, UMR CNRS-Université Paul Sabatier 5546, Chemin de Borde Rouge - Auzeville 31326, Castanet Tolosan, France. gilbert@lrsv.ups-tlse.fr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) with DNA microarrays has many biological applications including surveys of copy number changes in tumorogenesis, species detection and identification, and functional genomics studies among related organisms. Array CGH has also been used to infer phylogenetic relatedness among species or strains. Although the use of the entire genome can be seen as a considerable advantage for use in phylogenetic analysis, few such studies have questioned the reliability of array CGH to correctly determine evolutionary relationships. A potential flaw in this application lies in the fact that all comparisons are made to a single reference species. This situation differs from traditional DNA sequence, distance-based phylogenetic analyses where all possible pairwise comparisons are made for the isolates in question. By simulating array data based on the Neurospora crassa genome, we address this potential flaw and other questions regarding array CGH phylogeny. RESULTS: Our simulation data indicates that having a single reference can, in some cases, be a serious limitation when using this technique. Additionally, the tree building process with a single reference is sensitive to many factors including tree topology, choice of tree reconstruction method, and the distance metric used. CONCLUSIONS: Without prior knowledge of the topology and placement of the reference taxon in the topology, the outcome is likely to be wrong and the error undetected. Given these limitations, using CGH to reveal phylogeny based on sequence divergence does not offer a robust alternative to traditional phylogenetic analysis.
BACKGROUND: Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) with DNA microarrays has many biological applications including surveys of copy number changes in tumorogenesis, species detection and identification, and functional genomics studies among related organisms. Array CGH has also been used to infer phylogenetic relatedness among species or strains. Although the use of the entire genome can be seen as a considerable advantage for use in phylogenetic analysis, few such studies have questioned the reliability of array CGH to correctly determine evolutionary relationships. A potential flaw in this application lies in the fact that all comparisons are made to a single reference species. This situation differs from traditional DNA sequence, distance-based phylogenetic analyses where all possible pairwise comparisons are made for the isolates in question. By simulating array data based on the Neurospora crassa genome, we address this potential flaw and other questions regarding array CGH phylogeny. RESULTS: Our simulation data indicates that having a single reference can, in some cases, be a serious limitation when using this technique. Additionally, the tree building process with a single reference is sensitive to many factors including tree topology, choice of tree reconstruction method, and the distance metric used. CONCLUSIONS: Without prior knowledge of the topology and placement of the reference taxon in the topology, the outcome is likely to be wrong and the error undetected. Given these limitations, using CGH to reveal phylogeny based on sequence divergence does not offer a robust alternative to traditional phylogenetic analysis.
Authors: J W Taylor; D J Jacobson; S Kroken; T Kasuga; D M Geiser; D S Hibbett; M C Fisher Journal: Fungal Genet Biol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 3.495
Authors: Michael T Barrett; Alicia Scheffer; Amir Ben-Dor; Nick Sampas; Doron Lipson; Robert Kincaid; Peter Tsang; Bo Curry; Kristin Baird; Paul S Meltzer; Zohar Yakhini; Laurakay Bruhn; Stephen Laderman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: N Dorrell; J A Mangan; K G Laing; J Hinds; D Linton; H Al-Ghusein; B G Barrell; J Parkhill; N G Stoker; A V Karlyshev; P D Butcher; B W Wren Journal: Genome Res Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Timothy D Read; Scott N Peterson; Nicolas Tourasse; Les W Baillie; Ian T Paulsen; Karen E Nelson; Hervé Tettelin; Derrick E Fouts; Jonathan A Eisen; Steven R Gill; Erik K Holtzapple; Ole Andreas Okstad; Erlendur Helgason; Jennifer Rilstone; Martin Wu; James F Kolonay; Maureen J Beanan; Robert J Dodson; Lauren M Brinkac; Michelle Gwinn; Robert T DeBoy; Ramana Madpu; Sean C Daugherty; A Scott Durkin; Daniel H Haft; William C Nelson; Jeremy D Peterson; Mihai Pop; Hoda M Khouri; Diana Radune; Jonathan L Benton; Yasmin Mahamoud; Lingxia Jiang; Ioana R Hance; Janice F Weidman; Kristi J Berry; Roger D Plaut; Alex M Wolf; Kisha L Watkins; William C Nierman; Alyson Hazen; Robin Cline; Caroline Redmond; Joanne E Thwaite; Owen White; Steven L Salzberg; Brendan Thomason; Arthur M Friedlander; Theresa M Koehler; Philip C Hanna; Anne-Brit Kolstø; Claire M Fraser Journal: Nature Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Vasantika Suryawanshi; Ina N Talke; Michael Weber; Roland Eils; Benedikt Brors; Stephan Clemens; Ute Krämer Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.969