An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 743-757

  Brinkmann, Henner ^a   Van Der Giezen, Mark ^b   Zhou, Yan ^a   De Raucourt, Gaëtan Poncelin ^a   Philippe, Hervé ^a  

^a Universite de Montreal   (Canada)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Distant outgroup; Eukaryotic tree; Long branch attraction; Microsporidia; Multigene data sets; Nucleomorph; Rooting; Species sampling; Systematic biases

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; PROTOZOON; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; PROTOZOA; SAMPLE SIZE; SELECTION BIAS;

ARCHAEA; CRYPTOPHYTA; EUKARYOTA; MICROSPORIDIA;

EID: 27744524191     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150500234609     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Adachi, J., and M. Hasegawa. 1996a. Instability of quartet analyses of molecular sequence data by the maximum likelihood method: The Cetacea/Artiodactyla relationships. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6:72-76.
2. Adachi, J., and M. Hasegawa. 1996b. MOLPHY version 2.3: Programs for molecular phylogenetics based on maximum likelihood. Comput. Sci. Monogr. 28:1-150.
3. Aguinaldo, A. M., J. M. Turbeville, L. S. Linford, M. C. Rivera, J. R. Garey, R. A. Raff, and J. A. Lake. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-493.
4. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Pages 267-281 in Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory (B. N. Petrov and F. Csaki, eds.). Akademia Kiado, Budapest.
5. Anderson, F. E., and D. L. Swofford. 2004. Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33:440-451.
6. Baldauf, S. L., A. J. Roger, I. Wenk-Siefert, and W. F. Doolittle. 2000. A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data. Science 290:972-977.
7. Bapteste, E., H. Brinkmann, J. A. Lee, D. V. Moore, C. W. Sensen, P. Gordon, L. Durufle, T. Gaasterland, P. Lopez, M. Muller, and H., Philippe. 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1414-1419.
8. Blair, J. E., K. Ikeo, T. Gojobori, and S. B. Hedges. 2002. The evolutionary position of nematodes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2:7.
9. Brinkmann, H., and H. Philippe. 1999. Archaea sister group of Bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:817-825.
10. Brochier, C., and H. Philippe. 2002. Phylogeny: A non-hyperthermophilic ancestor for bacteria. Nature 417:244.
11. Bromham, L., D. Penny, A. Rambaut, and M. D. Hendy. 2000. The power of relative rates tests depends on the data. J. Mol. Evol. 50:296-301.
12. Bullerwell, C. E., L. Forget, and B. F. Lang. 2003. Evolution of monoblepharidalean fungi based on complete mitochondrial genome sequences. Nucleic. Acids Res. 31:1614-1623.
13. Burleigh, J. G., and S. Mathews. 2004. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: Implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. Am. J. Bot. 91:1599-1613.
14. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2003. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
15. Busse, I., and A. Preisfeld. 2003. Systematics of primary osmotrophic euglenids: A molecular approach to the phylogeny of Distigma and Astasia (Euglenozoa). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 53:617-624.
16. Castresana, J. 2000. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:540-552.
17. Cavalier-Smith, T. 2000. Membrane heredity and early chloroplast evolution. Trends Plant. Sci. 5:174-182.
18. Dacks, J. B., A. Marinets, W. Doolittle, T. Cavalier-Smith, and J. M. Logsdon, Jr. 2002. Analyses of RNA Polymerase II genes from free-living protists: Phylogeny, long branch attraction, and the eukaryotic big bang. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:830-840.
19. Dacks, J. B., J. D. Silberman, A. G. Simpson, S. Moriya, T. Kudo, M. Ohkuma, and R. J. Redfield. 2001. Oxymonads are closely related to the excavate taxon Trimastix. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1034-1044.
20. Delsuc, F., H. Brinkmann, and H. Philippe. 2005. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the Tree of Life: Methods, advances, and challenges. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6:361-375.
21. Douglas, S., S. Zauner, M. Fraunholz, M. Beaton, S. Penny, L. T. Deng, X. Wu, M. Reith, T. Cavalier-Smith, and U. G. Maier. 2001. The highly reduced genome of an enslaved algal nucleus. Nature 410:1091-1096.
22. Douzery, E. J., E. A. Snell, E. Bapteste, F. Delsuc, and H. Philippe. 2004. The timing of eukaryotic evolution: Does a relaxed molecular clock reconcile proteins and fossils? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:15386-15391.
23. Embley, T. M., M. van der Giezen, D. S. Horner, P. L. Dyal, S. Bell, and P. G. Foster. 2003. Hydrogenosomes, mitochondria and early eukaryotic evolution. IUBMB Life 55:387-395.
24. Fast, N. M., J. C. Kissinger, D. S. Roos, and P. J. Keeling. 2001. Nuclear-encoded, plastid-targeted genes suggest a single common origin for apicomplexan and dinoflagellate plastids. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:418-426.
25. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
26. Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
27. Forterre, P., and H. Philippe. 1999. Where is the root of the universal tree of life? BioEssays 21:871-879.
28. Foster, P. G., and D. A. Hickey. 1999. Compositional bias may affect both DNA-based and protein-based phylogenetic reconstructions. J. Mol. Evol. 48:284-290.
29. Galtier, N. 2001. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:866-873.
30. Gascuel, O. 1997. BIONJ: An improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:685-695.
31. Germot, A., H. Philippe, and H. Le Guyader. 1997. Evidence for loss of mitochondria in Microsporidia from a mitochondrial-type HSP70 in Nosema locustae. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 87:159-168.
32. Gibbs, S. P. 1981. The chloroplasts of some algal groups may have evolved from endosymbiotic eukaryotic algae. Ann NY Acad. Sci. 361:193-208.
33. Grassly, N. C., J. Adachi, and A. Rambaut. 1997. PSeq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of protein sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:559-560.
34. Graur, D., and D. G. Higgins. 1994. Molecular evidence for the inclusion of cetaceans within the order Artiodactyla. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:357-364.
35. Guindon, S., and O. Gascuel. 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52:696-704.
36. Hampl, V., I. Cepicka, J. Flegr, J. Tachezy, and J. Kulda. 2004. Critical analysis of the topology and rooting of the parabasalian 16S rRNA tree. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32:711-723.
37. Hasegawa, M., and M. Fujiwara. 1993. Relative efficiencies of the maximum likelihood, maximum parsimony, and neighbor-joining methods for estimating protein phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:1-5.
38. Hendy, M., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
39. Hillis, D. M., D. D. Pollock, J. A. McGuire, and D. J. Zwickl. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
40. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1997. Is the Felsenstein zone a fly trap? Syst. Biol. 46:69-74.
41. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1998. Systematic bias in phylogenetic analysis: Is the Strepsiptera problem solved? Syst. Biol. 47:519-537.
42. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:698-707.
43. Inagaki, Y., E. Susko, N. M. Fast, and A. J. Roger. 2004. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1 α phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1340-1349.
44. James, T. Y., D. Porter, C. A. Leander, R. Vilgalys, and J. E. Longcore. 2000. Molecular phylogenetics of the Chytridiomycota support the utility of ultrastructural data in chytrid systematics. Can. J. Bot. 78:336-350.
45. Jones, D. T., W. R. Taylor, and J. M. Thornton. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 8:275-282.
46. Katinka, M. D., S. Duprat, E. Cornillot, G. Metenier, F. Thomarat, G. Prensier, V. Barbe, E. Peyretaillade, P. Brottier, P. Wincker, F. Delbac, H. El Alaoui, P. Peyret, W. Saurin, M. Gouy, J. Weissenbach, and C. P. Vivares. 2001. Genome sequence and gene compaction of the eukaryote parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi. Nature 414:450-453.
47. Keeling, P. J. 2003. Congruent evidence from alpha-tubulin and beta-tubulin gene phylogenies for a zygomycete origin of microsporidia. Fungal Genet. Biol. 38:298-309.
48. Keeling, P. J., and N. M. Fast. 2002. Microsporidia: Biology and evolution of highly reduced intracellular parasites. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 56:93-116.
49. Kim, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: Effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
50. King, N., C. T. Hittinger, and S. B. Carroll. 2003. Evolution of key cell signaling and adhesion protein families predates animal origins. Science 301:361-336.
51. Kishino, H., T. Miyata, and M. Hasegawa. 1990. Maximum likelihood inference of protein phylogeny, and the origin of chloroplasts. J. Mol. Evol. 31:151-160.
52. Kolaczkowski, B., and J. W. Thornton. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-984.
53. Kuhner, M. K., and J. Felsenstein. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:459-468.
54. Lake, J. A., and M. C. Rivera. 1994. Was the nucleus the first endosymbiont? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:2880-2881.
55. Lang, B. F., C. O'Kelly, T. Nerad, M. W. Gray, and G. Burger. 2002. The closest unicellular relatives of animals. Curr. Biol. 12:1773-1778.
56. Lartillot, N., and H. Philippe. 2004. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1095-1109.
57. Lecointre, G., H. Philippe, H. L. V. Le, and H. Le Guyader. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:205-224.
58. Lerat, E., V. Daubin, and N. A. Moran. 2003. From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: The case of the gamma-Proteobacteria. PLoS Biol. 1:E19.
59. Lockhart, P. J., A. W. Larkum, M. Steel, P. J. Waddell, and D. Penny. 1996. Evolution of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll: The problem of invariant sites in sequence analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:1930-1934.
60. Lopez-Garcia, P., and D. Moreira. 1999. Metabolic symbiosis at the origin of eukaryotes. Trends Biochem. Sci. 24:88-93.
61. Madsen, O., M. Scally, C. J. Douady, D. J. Kao, R. W. DeBry, R. Adkins, H. M. Amrine, M. J. Stanhope, W. W. de Jong, and M. S. Springer. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 409:610-614.
62. Martin, W., and M. Müller. 1998. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote. Nature 392:37-41.
63. Murphy, W. J., E. Eizirik, S. J. O'Brien, O. Madsen, M. Scally, C. Douady, E. Teeling, O. A. Ryder, M. J. Stanhope, W. W. de Jong, and M. S. Springer. 2001. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294:2348-2351.
64. Nozaki, H., M. Matsuzaki, M. Takahara, O. Misumi, H. Kuroiwa, M. Hasegawa, I. T. Shin, Y. Kohara, N. Ogasawara, and T. Kuroiwa. 2003. The phylogenetic position of red algae revealed by multiple nuclear genes from mitochondria-containing eukaryotes and an alternative hypothesis on the origin of plastids. J. Mol. Evol. 56:485-497.
65. Pagel, M., and A. Meade. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst. Biol. 53:571-581.
66. Philip, G. K., C. J. Creevey, and J. O. McInerney. 2005. The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: Stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1175-1184.
67. Philippe, H. 1997. Rodent monophyly: Pitfalls of molecular phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 45:712-715.
68. Philippe, H., and E. Douzery. 1994. The pitfalls of molecular phylogeny based on four species, as illustrated by the Cetacea/Artiodactyla relationships. J. Mamm. Evol. 2:133-152.
69. Philippe, H., and A. Germot. 2000. Phylogeny of eukaryotes based on ribosomal RNA: Long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:830-834.
70. Philippe, H., A. Germot, and D. Moreira. 2000a. The new phylogeny of eukaryotes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10:596-601.
71. Philippe, H., N. Lartillot, and H. Brinkmann. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1246-1253.
72. Philippe, H., and J. Laurent. 1998. How good are deep phylogenetic trees? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8:616-623.
73. Philippe, H., P. Lopez, H. Brinkmann, K. Budin, A. Germot, J. Laurent, D. Moreira, M. Müller, and H. Le Guyader. 2000b. Early branching or fast evolving eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 267:1213-1221.
74. Philippe, H., E. A. Snell, E. Bapteste, P. Lopez, P. W. Holland, and D. Casane. 2004. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: Impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1740-1752.
75. Philippe, H., U. Sörhannus, A. Baroin, R. Perasso, F. Gasse, and A. Adoutte. 1994. Comparison of molecular and paleontological data in diatoms suggests a major gap in the fossil record. J. Evol. Biol. 7:247-265.
76. Phillips, M. J., F. Delsuc, and D. Penny. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1455-1458.
77. Pisani, D. 2004. Identifying and removing fast-evolving sites using compatibility analysis: An example from the arthropoda. Syst. Biol. 53:978-989.
78. Poe, S. 2003. Evaluation of the strategy of long-branch subdivision to improve the accuracy of phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 52:423-428.
79. Poole, A., D. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1999. Early evolution: Prokaryotes, the new kids on the block. Bioessays 21:880-889.
80. Qiu, Y. L., J. Lee, F. Bernasconi-Quadroni, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, M. Zanis, E. A. Zimmer, Z. Chen, V. Savolainen, and M. W. Chase. 1999. The earliest angiosperms: Evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402:404-407.
81. Qiu, Y. L., J. Lee, B. A. Whitlock, F. Bernasconi-Quadroni, and O. Dombrovska. 2001. Was the ANITA rooting of the angiosperm phylogeny affected by long-branch attraction? Amborella, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Trimeniaceae, and Austrobaileya. Mol Biol Evol 18:1745-1753.
82. Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N., H. Brinkmann, S. C. Burey, B. Roure, G. Burger, W. Löeffelhardt, H. J. Bohnert, H. Philippe, and B. F. Lang. 2005. Monophyly of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes: Green plants, red algae and glaucophytes. Current Biology 15:1325-1330.
83. Rokas, A., B. L. Williams, N. King, and S. B. Carroll. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804.
84. Ronquist, F., and J. P. Huelsenbeck. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-1574.
85. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2003. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52:119-124.
86. Salter, L. A. 2001. Complexity of the likelihood surface for a large DNA dataset. Syst Biol 50:970-978.
87. Sanderson, M. J., M. F. Wojciechowski, J. Hu, T. S. Khan, and S. G. Brady. 2000. Error, bias, and long-branch attraction in data for two chloroplast photosystem genes in seed plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:782-797.
88. Schmidt, H. A., K. Strimmer, M. Vingron, and A. von Haeseler. 2002. TREE-PUZZLE: Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18:502-504.
89. Shimodaira, H., and M. Hasegawa. 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1114-1116.
90. Shimodaira, H., and M. Hasegawa. 2001. CONSEL: For assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17:1246-1247.
91. Simpson, A. G., A. J. Roger, J. D. Silberman, D. D. Leipe, V. P. Edgcomb, L. S. Jermiin, D. J. Patterson, and M. L. Sogin. 2002. Evolutionary history of "early-diverging" eukaryotes: The excavate taxon Carpediemonas is a close relative of Giardia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1782-1791.
92. Soltis, P. S., D. E. Soltis, and M. W. Chase. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402:402-404.
93. Stechmann, A., and T. Cavalier-Smith. 2002. Rooting the eukaryote tree by using a derived gene fusion. Science 297:89-91.
94. Stiller, J., and B. Hall. 1999. Long-branch attraction and the rDNA model of early eukaryotic evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1270-1279.
95. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? Syst. Biol. 50:723-729.
96. Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods, version 4b10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
97. Swofford, D. L., P. J. Waddell, J. P. Huelsenbeck, P. G. Foster, P. O. Lewis, and J. S. Rogers. 2001. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst. Biol. 50:525-539.
98. Teunissen, M. J., and H. J. Op den Camp. 1993. Anaerobic fungi and their cellulolytic and xylanolytic enzymes. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 63:63-76.
99. Whelan, S., and N. Goldman. 2001. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:691-699.
100. Wiens, J. J. 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-640.
101. Wiens, J. J. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52:528-538.
102. Wiens, J. J. 2005. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction? Syst. Biol. 731-742.
103. Wolf, Y. I., I. B. Rogozin, and E. V. Koonin. 2004. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: Evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome. Res. 14:29-36.
104. Xue, G. P., C. G. Orpin, K. S. Gobius, J. H. Aylward, and G. D. Simpson. 1992. Cloning and expression of multiple cellulase cDNAs from the anaerobic rumen fungus Neoccillimastix patriciarum in Escherichia coli. J. Gen. Microbiol. 138:1413-1420.
105. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
106. Yang, Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
107. Yang, Z. 1997a. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? Mol. Biol. Evol. 144:105-108.
108. Yang, Z. 1997b. PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:555-556.
109. Yoon, H. S., J. D. Hackett, G. Pinto, and D. Bhattacharya. 2002. The single, ancient origin of chromist plastids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:15507-15512.