A mixed branch length model of heterotachy improves phylogenetic accuracy

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1054-1066

  Kolaczkowski, Bryan ^a   Thornton, Joseph W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Covarion; Evolutionary heterogeneity; Heterotachy; Maximum likelihood; Mixed branch length; Mixed model; Phylogenetics

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME SUBSTITUTION; EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; HETEROTACHY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA SEQUENCE; HUMAN; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 44649184070     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msn042     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Alfaro ME, Huelsenbeck JP. 2006. Comparative performance of Bayesian and AIC-based measures of phylogenetic model uncertainty. Syst Biol. 55:89-96.
3. Allman ES, Rhodes JA. 2006. The identifiability of tree topology for phylogenetic models, including covarion and mixture models. J Comput Biol. 15:1101-1113.
4. Ané C, Burleigh JG, McMahon MM, Sanderson MJ. 2005. Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: a new statistical test. Mol Biol Evol. 22:914-924.
5. Baele G, Raes J, de Peer YV, Vansteelandt S. 2006. An improved method for detecting heterotachy in nucleotide sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 23:1397-1405.
6. Blanquart S, Lartillot N. 2006. A Bayesian compound stochastic process for modeling nonstationary and nonhomogeneous sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 23:2058-2071.
7. Brown RP. 2005. Large subunit mitochondrial rRNA secondary structures and site-specific rate variation in two lizard lineages. J Mol Evol. 60:45-56.
8. Bruno WJ. 1996. Modeling residue usage in aligned protein sequences via maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 13:1368-1374.
9. Castresana J. 2000. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 17:540-552.
10. Chang JT. 1996. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math Biosci. 134:189-215.
11. Dean AM, Thornton JW. 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nat Rev Genet. 8:675-688.
12. Dimmic MW, Mindell DP, Goldstein RA. 2000. Modeling evolution at the protein level using an adjustable amino acid fitness model. Pac Symp Biocomput. 18-29.
13. Fitch WM. 1971. The nonidentity of invariable positions in the cytochromes c of different species. Biochem Genet. 5:231-241.
14. Fitch WM. 1976. The molecular evolution of cytochrome c in eukaryotes. J Mol Evol. 8:13-40.
15. Fitch WM, Markowitz E. 1970. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem Genet. 4:579-593.
16. Foster PG. 2004. Modeling compositional heterogeneity. Syst Biol. 53:485-495.
17. Gadagkar SR, Kumar S. 2005. Maximum likelihood outperforms maximum parsimony even when evolutionary rates are heterotachous. Mol Biol Evol. 22:2139-2141.
18. Galtier N. 2001. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol Biol Evol. 18:866-873.
19. Galtier N, Gouy M. 1998. Inferring pattern from process: maximum-likelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 15:871-879.
20. Gaucher EA, Miyamoto MM. 2005. A call for likelihood phylogenetics even when the process of sequence evolution is heterogeneous. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 37:928-931.
21. Gaucher EA, Miyamoto MM, Benner SA. 2001. Function-structure analysis of proteins using covarion-based evolutionary approaches: elongation factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 19:548-552.
22. Germot A, Philippe H. 1999. Critical analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny: a case study based on the HSP70 family. J Eukaryot Micorbiol. 46:116-124.
23. Gowri-Shankar V, Rattray M. 2005. On the correlation between composition and site-specific evolutionary rate: implications for phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 23:352-364.
24. GuX. 2001. Maximum-likelihood approach for gene family evolution under functional divergence. Mol Biol Evol. 18:453-464.
25. Gu X. 2003. Functional divergence in protein (family) sequence evolution. Genetica. 118:133-141.
26. Halpern AL, Bruno WJ. 1998. Evolutionary distances for protein-coding sequences: modeling site-specific residue frequencies. Mol Biol Evol. 15:910-917.
27. Hirt RP, Logsdon JM, Healy B, Dorey MW, Dolittle WF, Embley TM. 1999. Microsporidia are related to fungi: evidence from the largest subunit RNA polymerase II and other proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:580-585.
28. Huelsenbeck JP. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol Biol Evol. 19:698-707.
29. Huelsenbeck JP, Nielsen R. 1999. Variation in the pattern of nucleotide substitution across sites. J Mol Evol. 48:86-93.
30. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L. 1989. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika. 76:297-307.
31. Inagaki Y, Blouin C, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2003. Assessing functional divergence in EF-1a and its paralogs in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:4227-4237.
32. Inagaki Y, Susko E, Fast NM, Roger AJ. 2004. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1α phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1340-1349.
33. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science. 4598:61-680.
34. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature. 431:980-984.
35. Koshi JM, Goldstein RA. 1998. Models of natural mutations including site heterogeneity. Proteins: Struct Funct Genet. 32:289-295.
36. Koshi JM, Goldstein RA. 2001. Analyzing site heterogeneity during protein evolution. Pac Symp Biocomput. 191-202.
37. Lartillot N, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2007. Suppression of long-branch attraction artifacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol Biol. 7(Suppl 1):S4.
38. Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2004. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1095-1109.
39. Lockhart P, Novis P, Milligan BG, Riden J, Rambaut A, Larkum T. 2005. Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eubacteria. Mol Biol Evol. 23:40-45.
40. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA, Barbrook AC, Huson DH, Charleston MA, Howe CJ. 1998. A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. Mol Biol Evol. 15:1183-1188.
41. Lopez P, Casane D, Philippe H. 2002. Heterotachy, an important process in protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 19:1-7.
42. Matsen FA, Steel M. 2007. Phylogenetic mixtures on a single tree can mimic a tree of another topology. Syst Biol. 56:767-775.
43. McLachlan G, Peel D. 2000. Finite mixture models. John Wiley Sons, Inc.
44. Miyamoto MM, Fitch WM. 1995. Testing the covarion hypothesis of molecular evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 12:503-513.
45. Pagel M, Meade A. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character state data. Syst Biol. 53:571-581.
46. Penny D, McComish BJ, Charleston MA, Hendy MD. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J Mol Evol. 53:711-723.
47. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1246-1253.
48. Philippe H, Lopez P. 2001. On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem Sci. 26:414-416.
49. Philippe H, Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Delsuc F. 2005. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol. 5:50.
50. Posada D, Buckley TR. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of the AIC and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst Biol. 53:793-808.
51. Posada D, Crandall KA. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 14:817-818.
52. Rodriquez-Ezpeleta N, Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Becker B, Melkonian M. 2007. Phylogenetic analyses of nuclear, mitochondrial, and plastid multigene data sets support the placement of Mesostigma in the Streptophyta. Mol Biol Evol. 24:723-731.
53. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 19:1572-1574.
54. Ruano-Rubio V, Fares MA. 2007. Artifactual phylogenies caused by correlated distributions of substitution rates among sites and lineages: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Syst Biol. 56:68-82.
55. Schwartz G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 6:461-464.
56. Shimodaira H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol. 51:492-508.
57. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 2001. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics. 17:1246-1247.
58. Siddall ME, Kluge AG. 1999. Letter to the editor. Cladistics. 15:439-440.
59. Spencer M, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2005. Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1161-1164.
60. Steel M, Huson D, Lockhart PJ. 2000. Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst Biol. 49:225-232.
61. Štefankovič D, Vigoda E. 2006. Pitfalls of heterogeneous processes for phylogenetic reconstruction. Syst Biol. 56:113-124.
62. Susko E, Inagaki Y, Field C, Holder ME, Roger AJ. 2002. Testing for differences in rates-across-sites distributions in phylogenetic subtrees. Mol Biol Evol. 19:1514-1523.
63. Susko E, Spencer M, Roger AJ. 2005. Biases in phylogenetic estimation can be caused by random sequence segments. J Mol Evol. 61:351-359.
64. Swofford DL. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (MA).
65. Taylor MS, Kai C, Kawai J, Carnici P, Hayashizaki Y, Semple CAM. 2006. Heterotachy in mammalian promotor evolution. PLoS Genet. 2:627-639.
66. Thorne JL, Goldman N, Jones DT. 1996. Combining protein evolution and secondary structure. Mol Biol Evol. 13:666-673.
67. Tuffley C, Steel M. 1998. Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Math Biosci. 147:63-91.
68. Wang H-C, Spencer M, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2007. Testing for covarion-like evolution in protein sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 24:294-305.
69. Weakliem DL. 1999. A critique of the Bayesian information criterion for model selection. Sociol Methods Res. 27:359-397.
70. Yang Z. 1996a. Among-site rate variatino and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:367-372.
71. Yang Z. 1996b. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J Mol Evol. 42:587-596.
72. Yang Z, Roberts D. 1995. On the use of nucleic acid sequences to infer early branchings in the tree of life. Mol Biol Evol. 12:451-458.
73. Zhou Y, Rodrigue N, Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2007. Evaluation of the models handling heterotachy in phylogenetic inference. BMC Evol Biol. 7:206.