Literature DB >> 32073641

Morphological Phylogenetics Evaluated Using Novel Evolutionary Simulations.

Joseph N Keating1,2, Robert S Sansom1, Mark D Sutton3, Christopher G Knight1, Russell J Garwood1,4.   

Abstract

Evolutionary inferences require reliable phylogenies. Morphological data have traditionally been analyzed using maximum parsimony, but recent simulation studies have suggested that Bayesian analyses yield more accurate trees. This debate is ongoing, in part, because of ambiguity over modes of morphological evolution and a lack of appropriate models. Here, we investigate phylogenetic methods using two novel simulation models-one in which morphological characters evolve stochastically along lineages and another in which individuals undergo selection. Both models generate character data and lineage splitting simultaneously: the resulting trees are an emergent property, rather than a fixed parameter. Standard consensus methods for Bayesian searches (Mki) yield fewer incorrect nodes and quartets than the standard consensus trees recovered using equal weighting and implied weighting parsimony searches. Distances between the pool of derived trees (most parsimonious or posterior distribution) and the true trees-measured using Robinson-Foulds (RF), subtree prune and regraft (SPR), and tree bisection reconnection (TBR) metrics-demonstrate that this is related to the search strategy and consensus method of each technique. The amount and structure of homoplasy in character data differ between models. Morphological coherence, which has previously not been considered in this context, proves to be a more important factor for phylogenetic accuracy than homoplasy. Selection-based models exhibit relatively lower homoplasy, lower morphological coherence, and higher inaccuracy in inferred trees. Selection is a dominant driver of morphological evolution, but we demonstrate that it has a confounding effect on numerous character properties which are fundamental to phylogenetic inference. We suggest that the current debate should move beyond considerations of parsimony versus Bayesian, toward identifying modes of morphological evolution and using these to build models for probabilistic search methods. [Bayesian; evolution; morphology; parsimony; phylogenetics; selection; simulation.].
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32073641      PMCID: PMC7440746          DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syaa012

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


  47 in total

1.  Evolutionary and preservational constraints on origins of biologic groups: divergence times of eutherian mammals.

Authors:  M Foote; J P Hunter; C M Janis; J J Sepkoski
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-02-26       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction?

Authors:  John J Wiens
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 15.683

3.  Rates of phenotypic and genomic evolution during the Cambrian explosion.

Authors:  Michael S Y Lee; Julien Soubrier; Gregory D Edgecombe
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Mapping an expanding territory: computer simulations in evolutionary biology.

Authors:  Philippe Huneman
Journal:  Hist Philos Life Sci       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 1.205

5.  NATURAL SELECTION AND RANDOM GENETIC DRIFT IN PHENOTYPIC EVOLUTION.

Authors:  Russell Lande
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Modeling stabilizing selection: expanding the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model of adaptive evolution.

Authors:  Jeremy M Beaulieu; Dwueng-Chwuan Jhwueng; Carl Boettiger; Brian C O'Meara
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences.

Authors:  M Kimura
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data.

Authors:  Joseph E O'Reilly; Mark N Puttick; Luke Parry; Alastair R Tanner; James E Tarver; James Fleming; Davide Pisani; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 9.  The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales.

Authors:  Philip C J Donoghue; Ziheng Yang
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Probabilistic methods surpass parsimony when assessing clade support in phylogenetic analyses of discrete morphological data.

Authors:  Joseph E O'Reilly; Mark N Puttick; Davide Pisani; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Palaeontology       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 4.073

View more
  3 in total

1.  Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones.

Authors:  Jack W Oyston; Mark Wilkinson; Marcello Ruta; Matthew A Wills
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2022-05-31

2.  Sphenodontian phylogeny and the impact of model choice in Bayesian morphological clock estimates of divergence times and evolutionary rates.

Authors:  Tiago R Simões; Michael W Caldwell; Stephanie E Pierce
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 7.431

3.  The origin of Rhinocerotoidea and phylogeny of Ceratomorpha (Mammalia, Perissodactyla).

Authors:  Bin Bai; Jin Meng; Chi Zhang; Yan-Xin Gong; Yuan-Qing Wang
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2020-09-14
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.