Literature DB >> 32011711

The Multispecies Coalescent Model Outperforms Concatenation Across Diverse Phylogenomic Data Sets.

Xiaodong Jiang1, Scott V Edwards2, Liang Liu1,3.   

Abstract

A statistical framework of model comparison and model validation is essential to resolving the debates over concatenation and coalescent models in phylogenomic data analysis. A set of statistical tests are here applied and developed to evaluate and compare the adequacy of substitution, concatenation, and multispecies coalescent (MSC) models across 47 phylogenomic data sets collected across tree of life. Tests for substitution models and the concatenation assumption of topologically congruent gene trees suggest that a poor fit of substitution models, rejected by 44% of loci, and concatenation models, rejected by 38% of loci, is widespread. Logistic regression shows that the proportions of GC content and informative sites are both negatively correlated with the fit of substitution models across loci. Moreover, a substantial violation of the concatenation assumption of congruent gene trees is consistently observed across six major groups (birds, mammals, fish, insects, reptiles, and others, including other invertebrates). In contrast, among those loci adequately described by a given substitution model, the proportion of loci rejecting the MSC model is 11%, significantly lower than those rejecting the substitution and concatenation models. Although conducted on reduced data sets due to computational constraints, Bayesian model validation and comparison both strongly favor the MSC over concatenation across all data sets; the concatenation assumption of congruent gene trees rarely holds for phylogenomic data sets with more than 10 loci. Thus, for large phylogenomic data sets, model comparisons are expected to consistently and more strongly favor the coalescent model over the concatenation model. We also found that loci rejecting the MSC have little effect on species tree estimation. Our study reveals the value of model validation and comparison in phylogenomic data analysis, as well as the need for further improvements of multilocus models and computational tools for phylogenetic inference. [Bayes factor; Bayesian model validation; coalescent prior; congruent gene trees; independent prior; Metazoa; posterior predictive simulation.].
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32011711      PMCID: PMC7302055          DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syaa008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Syst Biol        ISSN: 1063-5157            Impact factor:   15.683


  80 in total

1.  Heterogeneity in the substitution process of amino acid sites of proteins coded for by mitochondrial DNA.

Authors:  J H Reeves
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  The gene tree delusion.

Authors:  Mark S Springer; John Gatesy
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 4.286

3.  GeneTree: comparing gene and species phylogenies using reconciled trees.

Authors:  R D Page
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  Phylogenetic Trees and Networks Can Serve as Powerful and Complementary Approaches for Analysis of Genomic Data.

Authors:  Christopher Blair; Cécile Ané
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  Impacts of Inference Method and Data set Filtering on Phylogenomic Resolution in a Rapid Radiation of Ground Squirrels (Xerinae: Marmotini).

Authors:  Bryan S Mclean; Kayce C Bell; Julie M Allen; Kristofer M Helgen; Joseph A Cook
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 15.683

6.  Phylogenetic Comparative Methods on Phylogenetic Networks with Reticulations.

Authors:  Paul Bastide; Claudia Solís-Lemus; Ricardo Kriebel; K William Sparks; Cécile Ané
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 15.683

7.  Contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes.

Authors:  Xing-Xing Shen; Chris Todd Hittinger; Antonis Rokas
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 15.460

8.  Analytical Biases Associated with GC-Content in Molecular Evolution.

Authors:  Jonathan Romiguier; Camille Roux
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 4.599

9.  Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10.

Authors:  Marc A Suchard; Philippe Lemey; Guy Baele; Daniel L Ayres; Alexei J Drummond; Andrew Rambaut
Journal:  Virus Evol       Date:  2018-06-08

10.  Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data.

Authors:  Joseph Heled; Alexei J Drummond
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 16.240

View more
  12 in total

1.  Quest for the Best Evolutionary Model.

Authors:  Rafael Zardoya
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Phylogenomics and species delimitation of the economically important Black Basses (Micropterus).

Authors:  Daemin Kim; Andrew T Taylor; Thomas J Near
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  An investigation of irreproducibility in maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference.

Authors:  Xing-Xing Shen; Yuanning Li; Chris Todd Hittinger; Xue-Xin Chen; Antonis Rokas
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Phylogenomic analyses of echinoid diversification prompt a re-evaluation of their fossil record.

Authors:  Nicolás Mongiardino Koch; Jeffrey R Thompson; Avery S Hiley; Marina F McCowin; A Frances Armstrong; Simon E Coppard; Felipe Aguilera; Omri Bronstein; Andreas Kroh; Rich Mooi; Greg W Rouse
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Phylotranscriptomic insights into a Mesoproterozoic-Neoproterozoic origin and early radiation of green seaweeds (Ulvophyceae).

Authors:  Zheng Hou; Xiaoya Ma; Xuan Shi; Xi Li; Lingxiao Yang; Shuhai Xiao; Olivier De Clerck; Frederik Leliaert; Bojian Zhong
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 17.694

6.  Interrogating Phylogenetic Discordance Resolves Deep Splits in the Rapid Radiation of Old World Fruit Bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae).

Authors:  Nicolas Nesi; Georgia Tsagkogeorga; Susan M Tsang; Violaine Nicolas; Aude Lalis; Annette T Scanlon; Silke A Riesle-Sbarbaro; Sigit Wiantoro; Alan T Hitch; Javier Juste; Corinna A Pinzari; Frank J Bonaccorso; Christopher M Todd; Burton K Lim; Nancy B Simmons; Michael R McGowen; Stephen J Rossiter
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 15.683

7.  Evolutionary relationships among the snakelike pygopodid lizards: a review of phylogenetic studies of an enigmatic Australian adaptive radiation.

Authors:  W Bryan Jennings
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Large Phylogenomic Data sets Reveal Deep Relationships and Trait Evolution in Chlorophyte Green Algae.

Authors:  Xi Li; Zheng Hou; Chenjie Xu; Xuan Shi; Lingxiao Yang; Louise A Lewis; Bojian Zhong
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.416

9.  Partitioned Gene-Tree Analyses and Gene-Based Topology Testing Help Resolve Incongruence in a Phylogenomic Study of Host-Specialist Bees (Apidae: Eucerinae).

Authors:  Felipe V Freitas; Michael G Branstetter; Terry Griswold; Eduardo A B Almeida
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  How to Tackle Phylogenetic Discordance in Recent and Rapidly Radiating Groups? Developing a Workflow Using Loricaria (Asteraceae) as an Example.

Authors:  Martha Kandziora; Petr Sklenář; Filip Kolář; Roswitha Schmickl
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.753

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.