James B Pease1, Joseph W Brown2, Joseph F Walker2, Cody E Hinchliff3, Stephen A Smith2. 1. Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, 455 Vine Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101, USA. 2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 North University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109, USA. 3. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 3051, Moscow, Idaho, 83844, USA.
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Phylogenetic support has been difficult to evaluate within the green plant tree of life partly due to a lack of specificity between conflicted versus poorly informed branches. As data sets continue to expand in both breadth and depth, new support measures are needed that are more efficient and informative. METHODS: We describe the Quartet Sampling (QS) method, a quartet-based evaluation system that synthesizes several phylogenetic and genomic analytical approaches. QS characterizes discordance in large-sparse and genome-wide data sets, overcoming issues of alignment sparsity and distinguishing strong conflict from weak support. We tested QS with simulations and recent plant phylogenies inferred from variously sized data sets. KEY RESULTS: QS scores demonstrated convergence with increasing replicates and were not strongly affected by branch depth. Patterns of QS support from different phylogenies led to a coherent understanding of ancestral branches defining key disagreements, including the relationships of Ginkgo to cycads, magnoliids to monocots and eudicots, and mosses to liverworts. The relationships of ANA-grade angiosperms (Amborella, Nymphaeales, Austrobaileyales), major monocot groups, bryophytes, and fern families are likely highly discordant in their evolutionary histories, rather than poorly informed. QS can also detect discordance due to introgression in phylogenomic data. CONCLUSIONS: Quartet Sampling is an efficient synthesis of phylogenetic tests that offers more comprehensive and specific information on branch support than conventional measures. The QS method corroborates growing evidence that phylogenomic investigations that incorporate discordance testing are warranted when reconstructing complex evolutionary histories, in particular those surrounding ANA-grade, monocots, and nonvascular plants.
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Phylogenetic support has been difficult to evaluate within the green plant tree of life partly due to a lack of specificity between conflicted versus poorly informed branches. As data sets continue to expand in both breadth and depth, new support measures are needed that are more efficient and informative. METHODS: We describe the Quartet Sampling (QS) method, a quartet-based evaluation system that synthesizes several phylogenetic and genomic analytical approaches. QS characterizes discordance in large-sparse and genome-wide data sets, overcoming issues of alignment sparsity and distinguishing strong conflict from weak support. We tested QS with simulations and recent plant phylogenies inferred from variously sized data sets. KEY RESULTS: QS scores demonstrated convergence with increasing replicates and were not strongly affected by branch depth. Patterns of QS support from different phylogenies led to a coherent understanding of ancestral branches defining key disagreements, including the relationships of Ginkgo to cycads, magnoliids to monocots and eudicots, and mosses to liverworts. The relationships of ANA-grade angiosperms (Amborella, Nymphaeales, Austrobaileyales), major monocot groups, bryophytes, and fern families are likely highly discordant in their evolutionary histories, rather than poorly informed. QS can also detect discordance due to introgression in phylogenomic data. CONCLUSIONS: Quartet Sampling is an efficient synthesis of phylogenetic tests that offers more comprehensive and specific information on branch support than conventional measures. The QS method corroborates growing evidence that phylogenomic investigations that incorporate discordance testing are warranted when reconstructing complex evolutionary histories, in particular those surrounding ANA-grade, monocots, and nonvascular plants.
Authors: Rafael G Albaladejo; Sara Martín-Hernanz; J Alfredo Reyes-Betancort; Arnoldo Santos-Guerra; María Olangua-Corral; Abelardo Aparicio Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Anton Suvorov; Bernard Y Kim; Jeremy Wang; Ellie E Armstrong; David Peede; Emmanuel R R D'Agostino; Donald K Price; Peter Waddell; Michael Lang; Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo; Jean R David; Dmitri Petrov; Daniel R Matute; Daniel R Schrider; Aaron A Comeault Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Elliot M Gardner; Matthew G Johnson; Joan T Pereira; Aida Shafreena Ahmad Puad; Deby Arifiani; Norman J Wickett; Nyree J C Zerega Journal: Syst Biol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 15.683
Authors: Diego F Morales-Briones; Berit Gehrke; Chien-Hsun Huang; Aaron Liston; Hong Ma; Hannah E Marx; David C Tank; Ya Yang Journal: Syst Biol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 15.683
Authors: Qing-Hui Sun; Diego F Morales-Briones; Hong-Xin Wang; Jacob B Landis; Jun Wen; Hua-Feng Wang Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Anton Suvorov; Celine Scornavacca; M Stanley Fujimoto; Paul Bodily; Mark Clement; Keith A Crandall; Michael F Whiting; Daniel R Schrider; Seth M Bybee Journal: Syst Biol Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 9.160