Retrieving a mitogenomic mammal tree using composite taxa

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 149-156

  Campbell, Véronique ^a   Lapointe, François Joseph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Composite sequences; Computer simulations; Congruence; DNA sequences; Missing data; Phylogenetic accuracy; Phylogenomics; Supermatrices

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETICS; GENOMICS; MAMMAL; METHODOLOGY; MITOCHONDRIAL GENOME; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

ANIMALS; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; GENOME, MITOCHONDRIAL; GENOMICS; MAMMALS; MODELS, GENETIC; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 79951577664     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.11.017     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Arnason U., Adegoke J.A., Gullberg A., Harley E.H., Janke A., Kullberg M. Mitogenomic relationships of placental mammals and molecular estimates of their divergences. Gene 2008, 421:37-51.
2. Asher R.J., Horovitz I., Sánchez-Villagra M.R. First combined cladistic analysis of marsupial mammal interrelationships. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2004, 33:240-250.
3. Beck R.M.D. A dated phylogeny of marsupials using a molecular supermatrix and multiple fossil constraints. J. Mammal. 2008, 89:175-189.
4. Bergsten J. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 2005, 21:163-193.
5. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P., Sanderson M.J. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 2001, 50:565-579.
6. Bourlat S.J., Nielsen C., Economou A.D., Telford M.J. Testing the new animal phylogeny: a phylum level molecular analysis of the animal kingdom. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2008, 49:23-31.
7. Campbell V., Lapointe F.-J. The use and validity of composite taxa in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:560-572.
8. Campbell, V., Lapointe, F.-J., in preparation. DNA simulations testing the use of composite taxa in different contexts.
9. Crandall K.A., Buhay J.E. Genomic databases and the tree of life. Science 2004, 306:1144-1145.
10. Delsuc F., Brinkmann H., Chourrout D., Philippe H. Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Nature 2006, 439:965-968.
11. Delsuc F., Brinkmann H., Philippe H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6:361-375.
12. Delsuc F., Scally M., Madsen O., Stanhope M.J., de Jong W.W., Catzeflis F.M., Springer M.S., Douzery E.J.P. Molecular phylogeny of living xenarthrans and the impact of character and taxon sampling on the placental tree rooting. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:1656-1671.
13. Diallo A.B., Lapointe F.-J., Makarenkov V. A new effective method for estimating missing values in the sequence data prior to phylogenetic analysis. Evol. Bioinform. 2006, 2:127-135.
14. Douzery E.J.P., Delsuc F., Stanhope M.J., Huchon D. Local molecular clocks in three nuclear genes: divergence times for rodents and other mammals and incompatibility among fossil calibrations. J. Mol. Evol. 2003, 57:S201-S213.
15. Doyle J.A., Donoghue M.J. The importance of fossils in elucidating seed plant phylogeny and macroevolution. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 1987, 50:63-95.
16. Driskell A.C., Ané C., Burleigh J.G., McMahon M.M., O'Meara B.C., Sanderson M.J. Prospects for building the tree of life from large sequence databases. Science 2004, 306:1172-1174.
17. Dunn C.W., Hejnol A., Matus D.Q., Pang K., Browne W.E., Smith S.A., Seaver E., Rouse G.W., Obst M., Edgecombe G.D., Sorensen M.V., Haddock S.H.D., Schmidt-Rhaesa A., Okusu A., Kristensen R.M., Wheeler W.C., Martindale M.Q., Giribet G. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 2008, 452:745-749.
18. Duvall M.R., Robinson J.W., Mattson J.G., Moore A. Phylogenetic analyses of two mitochondrial metabolic genes sampled in parallel from angiosperms find fundamental interlocus incongruence. Am. J. Bot. 2008, 95:871-884.
19. Felsenstein J. Maximum-likelihood estimation of evolutionary trees from continuous characters. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1973, 25:471-492.
20. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 1981, 17:368-376.
21. Finden C.R., Gordon A.D. Obtaining common pruned trees. J. Classif. 1985, 2:255-276.
22. Flynn J.J., Finarelli J.A., Zehr S., Hsu J., Nedbal M.A. Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:317-337.
23. Gascuel O. BIONJ: an improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1997, 14:685-695.
24. Gatesy J., Matthee C., DeSalle R., Hayashi C. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:652-664.
25. Gauthier J., Kluge A.G., Rowe T. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 1988, 4:105-210.
26. Gibson A., Gowri-Shankar V., Higgs P.G., Rattray M. A comprehensive analysis of mammalian mitochondrial genome base composition and improved phylogenetic methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:251-264.
27. Goddard W., Kubicka E., Kubicki G., Mcmorris F.R. The agreement metric for labeled binary trees. Math. Biosci. 1994, 123:215-226.
28. Gordon A.D. On the assessment and comparison of classifications. Analyse de données et informatique 1980, 149-160. INRIA, Le Chesnay, France. R. Tomassone (Ed.).
29. Guindon S., Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:696-704.
30. Hartmann S., Vision T.J. Using ESTs for phylogenomics: can one accurately infer a phylogenetic tree from a gappy alignment?. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:95.
31. Higgins D.G., Sharp P.M. Clustal: a package for performing multiple sequence alignment on a microcomputer. Gene 1988, 73:237-244.
32. Hillis D.M. Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 1995, 44:3-16.
33. Hillis D.M., Pollock D.D., McGuire J.A., Zwickl D.J. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference?. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:124-126.
34. Horner D.S., Lefkimmiatis K., Reyes A., Gissi C., Saccone C., Pesole G. Phylogenetic analyses of complete mitochondrial genome sequences suggest a basal divergence of the enigmatic rodent Anomalurus. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:16.
35. Huelsenbeck J.P. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis?. Syst. Zool. 1991, 40:458-469.
36. Huelsenbeck J.P. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 1995, 44:17-48.
37. Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2001, 17:754-755.
38. Huttley G.A., Wakefield M.J., Easteal S. Rates of genome evolution and branching order from whole genome analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:1722-1730.
39. Ihaka R., Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 1996, 5:299-314.
40. Jeffroy O., Brinkmann H., Delsuc F., Philippe H. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:225-231.
41. Kearney M. Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: mistaken assumptions and conclusions. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:369-381.
42. Kjer K.M., Honeycutt R.L. Site specific rates of mitochondrial genomes and the phylogeny of eutheria. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:8.
43. Lanave C., Preparata G., Saccone C., Serio G. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Evol. 1984, 20:86-93.
44. Legendre P., Lapointe F.-J. Assessing congruence among distance matrices: single-malt scotch whiskies revisited. Aust. Nz J. Stat. 2004, 46:615-629.
45. Lin Y.H., McLenachan P.A., Gore A.R., Phillips M.J., Ota R., Hendy M.D., Penny D. Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:2060-2070.
46. Lin Y.H., Waddell P.J., Penny D. Pika and vole mitochondrial genomes increase support for both rodent monophyly and glires. Gene 2002, 294:119-129.
47. Madsen O., Scally M., Douady C.J., Kao D.J., DeBry R.W., Adkins R., Amrine H.M., Stanhope M.J., de Jong W.W., Springer M.S. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 2001, 409:610-614.
48. Malia M.J.J., Lipscomb D.L., Allard M.W. The misleading effects of composite taxa in supermatrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 27:522-527.
49. Marek P.E., Bond J.E. Phylogenetic systematics of the colorful, cyanide-producing millipedes of Appalachia (Polydesmida, Xystodesmidae, Apheloriini) using a total evidence Bayesian approach. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2006, 41:704-729.
50. Montgelard C., Forty E., Arnal V., Matthee C.A. Suprafamilial relationships among Rodentia and the phylogenetic effect of removing fast-evolving nucleotides in mitochondrial, exon and intron fragments. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8:321.
51. Murphy W.J., Eizirik E., Johnson W.E., Zhang Y.P., Ryder O.A., O'Brien S.J. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 2001, 409:614-618.
52. Nishihara H., Okada N., Hasegawa M. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biology 2007, 8:R199.
53. Paradis E. Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution with R 2006, Springer, New York.
54. Paradis E., Claude J., Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004, 20:289-290.
55. Penny D., Hasegawa M. The platypus put in its place. Nature 1997, 387:549-550.
56. Philippe H. Rodent monophyly: pitfalls of molecular phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 1997, 45:712-715.
57. Philippe H., Brinkmann H., Martinez P., Riutort M., Baguñà J. Acoel flatworms are not Platyhelminthes: evidence from phylogenomics. PLoS ONE 2007, 2:e717.
58. Philippe H., Delsuc F., Brinkmann H., Lartillot N. Phylogenomics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:541-562.
59. Philippe H., Lartillot N., Brinkmann H. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1246-1253.
60. Philippe H., Snell E.A., Bapteste E., Lopez P., Holland P.W.H., Casane D. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1740-1752.
61. Phillips M.J., McLenachan P.A., Down C., Gibb G.C., Penny D. Combined mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences resolve the interrelations of the major Australasian marsupial radiations. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:122-137.
62. Posada D., Crandall K.A. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 1998, 14:817-818.
63. Poux C., Chevret P., Huchon D., de Jong W.W., Douzery E.J.P. Arrival and diversification of caviomorph rodents and platyrrhine primates in South America. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:228-244.
64. Prasad A.B., Allard M.W., Green E.D. Confirming the phylogeny of mammals by use of large comparative sequence data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:1795-1808.
65. Rannala B., Yang Z.H. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 1996, 43:304-311.
66. Reyes A., Gissi C., Catzeflis F., Nevo E., Pesole G., Saccone C. Congruent mammalian trees from mitochondrial and nuclear genes using Bayesian methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:397-403.
67. Robinson D.F., Foulds L.R. Comparisons on Weighted Labelled Trees. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 119-126.
68. Robinson D.F., Foulds L.R. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 1981, 53:131-147.
69. Rodriguez F., Oliver J.L., Marin A., Medina J.R. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J. Theor. Biol. 1990, 142:485-501.
70. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N., Brinkmann H., Burey S.C., Roure B., Burger G., Loffelhardt W., Bohnert H.J., Philippe H., Lang B.F. Monophyly of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes: green plants, red algae, and glaucophytes. Curr. Biol. 2005, 15:1325-1330.
71. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N., Brinkmann H., Roure B., Lartillot N., Lang B.F., Philippe H. Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:389-399.
72. Roeding F., Hagner-Holler S., Ruhberg H., Ebersberger I., von Haeseler A., Kube M., Reinhardt R., Burmester T. EST sequencing of onychophora and phylogenomic analysis of metazoa. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2007, 45:942-951.
73. Rohlf F.J. Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 1982, 59:131-144.
74. Rokas A., Carroll S.B. More genes or more taxa? The relative contribution of gene number and taxon number to phylogenetic accuracy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1337-1344.
75. Rokas A., Williams B.L., King N., Carroll S.B. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 2003, 425:798-804.
76. Rosenberg M.S., Kumar S. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:119-124.
77. Rudd S. Expressed sequence tags: alternative or complement to whole genome sequences?. Trends Plant. Sci. 2003, 8:321-329.
78. Sanderson M.J., Driskell A.C. The challenge of constructing large phylogenetic trees. Trends Plant. Sci. 2003, 8:374-379.
79. Scally M., Madsen O., Douady C.J., de Jong W.W., Stanhope M.J., Springer M.S. Molecular evidence for the major clades of placental mammals. J. Mammal. Evol. 2001, 8:239-277.
80. Schmitz J., Ohme M., Zischler H. The complete mitochondrial sequence of Tarsius bancanus: evidence for an extensive nucleotide compositional plasticity of primate mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:544-553.
81. Seiffert E.R. A new estimate of afrotherian phylogeny based on simultaneous analysis of genomic, morphological, and fossil evidence. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:224.
82. Shoshani J., McKenna M.C. Higher taxonomic relationships among extant mammals based on morphology, with selected comparisons of results from molecular data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1998, 9:572-584.
83. Springer M.S., Murphy W.J. Mammalian evolution and biomedicine: new views from phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 2007, 82:375-392.
84. Springer M.S., Scally M., Madsen O., de Jong W.W., Douady C.J., Stanhope M.J. The use of composite taxa in supermatrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2004, 30:883-884.
85. Springer M.S., Stanhope M.J., Madsen O., de Jong W.W. Molecules consolidate the placental mammal tree. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:430-438.
86. * Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and Other Methods 1998, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
87. Tavaré S. Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lec. Math. Life Sci 1986, 17:57-86.
88. Telford M.J. Phylogenomics. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:R945-R946.
89. Telford M.J. Resolving animal phylogeny: a sledgehammer for a tough nut?. Dev. Cell 2008, 14:457-459.
90. Waddell P.J., Cao Y., Hauf J., Hasegawa M. Using novel phylogenetic methods to evaluate mammalian mtDNA, including amino acid-invariant sites-logdet plus site stripping, to detect internal conflicts in the data, with special reference to the positions of hedgehog, armadillo and elephant. Syst. Biol. 1999, 48:31-53.
91. Wiens J.J. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy?. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:625-640.
92. Wiens J.J. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:528-538.
93. Wiens J.J. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction?. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:731-742.
94. Wiens J.J. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. J. Biomed. Inform. 2006, 39:34-42.
95. Wiens J.J., Fetzner J.W., Parkinson C.L., Reeder T.W. Hylid frog phylogeny and sampling strategies for speciose clades. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:719-748.
96. Wiens J.J., Reeder T.W. Combining data sets with different numbers of taxa for phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 1995, 44:548-558.
97. Yang Z.H. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1993, 10:1396-1401.