Sources of error inherent in species-tree estimation: Impact of mutational and coalescent effects on accuracy and implications for choosing among different methods

Systematic Biology

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 573-583

  Huang, Huateng ^a   He, Qixin ^a   Kubatko, Laura S ^b   Knowles, L Lacey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coalescence; gene tree; lineage sorting; mutation; phylogenetics; sample design; species tree

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; METHODOLOGY; MUTATION; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; GENETIC SPECIATION; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 77958059433     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syq047     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ané C., Larget B., Baum D.A., Smith S.D., Rokas A. 2007. Bayesian estimation of concordance among gene trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24: 412-426.
2. Brumfeld R.T., Liu L., Lum D.E., Edwards S.V. 2008. Comparison of species tree methods for reconstructing the phylogeny of bearded manakins (Aves: Pipridae, Manacus) from multi-locus sequence data. Syst. Biol. 57:719-731.
3. Carstens B.C., Knowles L.L. 2006. Variable nuclear markers for Melanoplus oregonensis identifed from the screening of a genomic library. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6:683-685.
4. Carstens B.C., Knowles L.L. 2007. Estimating species phylogeny from gene-tree probabilities despite incomplete lineage sorting: an example from Melanoplus grasshoppers. Syst. Biol. 56:400-411.
5. Cranston C., Hurwitz B., Ware D., Stein L., Wing R.A. 2009. Species trees from highly incongruent gene trees in rice. Syst. Biol. 58:489-500.
6. Degnan J.H., Rosenberg N.A. 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2:762-768.
7. Degnan J.H., Rosenberg N.A. 2009. Gene tree discordance, phyloge-netic inference and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:332-340.
8. Eckert A.J., Carstens B.C. 2008. Does gene fow destroy phylogenetic signal? The performance of three methods for estimating species phylogenies in the presence of gene fow. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 49:832-842.
9. Edwards S.V. 2009. Is a new and general theory of molecular system-atics emerging? Evolution. 63:1-19.
10. Edwards S.V., Liu L., Pearl D.K. 2007. High-resolution species trees without concatenation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 104: 5936-5941.
11. Felsenstein J. 1993. Phylip (phylogeny inference package) version 3.5c. Seattle (WA): Distributed by the author, Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington. Available from: http://evolution.genetics.washington. edu/phylip.html.
12. Gaut B.S., Lewis P.O. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:152-162.
13. Hahn D.A., Ragland G.J., Shoemaker D.D., Denlinger D.L. 2009. Gene discovery using massively parallel pyrosequencing to develop ESTs for the fesh fy Sarcophaga crassipalpis. BMC Genomics. 10:9.
14. Hasegawa M., Kishino H., Yano T.A. 1985. Dating of the human ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial-DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
15. Hobolth A., Christensen O.F., Mailund T., Schierup M.H. 2007. Ge-nomic relationships and speciation times of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla inferred from a coalescent hidden Markov model. PLoS Genet. 3:e7.
16. Huang H., Knowles L.L. 2009. What is the danger of the anomaly zone for empirical phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 58:527-536.
17. Hudson R.R. 1990. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:1-44.
18. Hudson R.R. 2002. Generating samples under a Wright-Fisher neutral model of genetic variation. Bioinformatics. 18:337-338.
19. Huelsenbeck J.P., Hillis D.M. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
20. Huelsenbeck J.P., Hillis D.M., Nielsen R. 1996. A likelihood-ratio test of monophyly. Syst. Biol. 45:546-558.
21. Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 17:754-755.
22. Kimura M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16:111-120.
23. Knowles L.L. 2009a. Species tree estimation: methods of phylogenetic analysis when there is incongruence across genes. Syst. Biol. 58:463-467.
24. Knowles L.L. 2009b. Statistical phylogeography. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 40:593-612.
25. Knowles L.L. 2010. Sampling strategies for species-tree estimation. In: Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S., editors. Estimating species trees: practical and theoretical aspects. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 163-173.
26. Knowles L.L., Chan Y.-H. 2008. Resolving species phylogenies of recent evolutionary radiations. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 95: 224-231.
27. Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S. 2010. Estimating species trees: an introduction to concepts and models. In:Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S., editors. Estimating species trees: practical and theoretical aspects. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 1-14.
28. Kubatko L.S., Carstens B.C., Knowles L.L. 2009. STEM: species tree estimation using maximum likelihood for gene trees under coalescence. Bioinformatics. 25:971-973.
29. Kubatko L.S., Gibbs H.L. 2010. Estimating species relationships and taxon distinctiveness in Sistrurus rattlesnakes using multi-locus data. In: Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S., editors. Estimating species trees: practical and theoretical aspects. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 193-207.
30. Linnen C. 2010. Species-tree estimation for complex divergence histories: a case study in Neodiprion sawfies. In: Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S., editors. Estimating species trees: practical and theoretical aspects. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 145-162.
31. Liu L. 2008. BEST: Bayesian estimation of species trees under the coa-lescent model. Bioinformatics. 24:2542-2543.
32. Liu L., Pearl D.K., Brumfeld R.T., Edwards S.V. 2008. Estimating species trees using multiple-allele DNA sequence data. Evolution. 62:2080-2091.
33. Liu L., Yu L., Pearl D.K. 2010. Maximum tree: a consistent estimator of the species tree. J. Math. Biol. 60:95-106.
34. Liu L., Yu L., Pearl D.K., Edwards S.V. 2009. Estimating species phy-logenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst. Biol. 58: 468-477.
35. Maddison W.P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 46:523-536.
36. Maddison W.P., Knowles L.L. 2006. Inferring phylogeny despite incomplete lineage sorting. Syst. Biol. 55:21-30.
37. Maddison W.P., Maddison D.R. 2009. MESQUITE: a modular system for evolutionary analysis., version 2.6, version 2.71. Available from: http://mesquiteproject.org.
38. McCormack J.P., Huang H., Knowles L.L. 2009. Maximum-likelihood estimates of species trees: how accuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design. Syst. Biol. 58:501-508.
39. Mossel E., Roch S. 2007. Incomplete lineage sorting: consistent phy-logeny estimation from multiple loci. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 7: 166-171.
40. Mossel E., Vigoda E. 2005. Phylogenetic MCMC algorithms are misleading on mixtures of trees. Science. 309:2207-2209.
41. Pamilo P., Nei M. 1988. Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:568-583.
42. Rambaut A., Grassly, N.C. 1997. SEQ-GEN: an application for the monte carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylo-genetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235-238. (Pubitemid 27249927)
43. Rannala B., Yang Z. 2003. Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics. 164:1645-1656.
44. Ripplinger J., Sullivan J. 2008. Does choice in model selection affect maximum likelihood analysis? Syst. Biol. 57:76-85.
45. Robins J.H., McLenachan P.A., Phillips M.J., Craig L., Ross H.A., Matisoo-Smith E. 2008. Dating of divergences within the Rattus genus phylogeny using whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phy-logenet. Evol. 49:460-466.
46. Robinson D.F., Foulds L.R. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
47. Rokas A., Williams B.L., King N., Carroll S.B. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature. 425:798-804.
48. Singh N.D., Arndt P.F., Clark A.G., Aquadro C.F. 2009. Strong evidence for lineage and sequence specifcity of substitution rates and patterns in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 26:1591-1605.
49. Sullivan J., Swofford D.L. 1997. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenetics. J. Mamm. Evol. 4:77-86.
50. Sullivan J., Swofford D.L. 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.
51. Takahata N. 1989. Gene genealogy in three related populations: consistency probability between gene and population trees. Genetics. 122:957-966.
52. Than C., Nakhleh L. 2009. Species tree inference by minimizing deep coalescences. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5:5.
53. Wakeley J., Nielsen R., Liu-Cordero S.N., Ardlie K. 2001. The discovery of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and inferences about human demographic history. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1332-1347.