Supermatrices, supertrees and serendipitous scaffolding: Inferring a well-resolved, genus-level phylogeny of Styphelioideae (Ericaceae) despite missing data

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 146-158

  Johnson, Karen A ^a   Holland, Barbara R ^a   Heslewood, Margaret M ^b   Crayn, Darren M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^b ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS AND DOMAIN TRUST   (Australia)

^c JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Epacridaceae; Matrix Representation with Parsimony; Maximum likelihood; Missing data; Scaffold concept

Indexed keywords

RIBOSOMAL SPACER DNA; RNA 18S; VEGETABLE PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; ERICACEAE; GENETICS; MULTILOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; DNA, RIBOSOMAL SPACER; ERICACEAE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; MULTILOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING; PHYLOGENY; PLANT PROTEINS; RNA, RIBOSOMAL, 18S; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

COSMELIEAE; ERICACEAE; RICHEEAE; STYPHELIOIDEAE;

EID: 83655167224     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Albrecht D.A., Owens C.T., Weiller C.M., Quinn C.J. Generic concepts in Ericaceae: Styphelioideae - the Monotoca group. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2010, 23:320-332.
2. Baum B.R. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 1992, 41:3-10.
3. Bininda-Edmonds O.R. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:839-848.
4. Bininda-Edmonds O.R. Trees versus characters and the supertree/supermatrix "paradox" Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:356-359.
5. Burleigh J.G., Driskell A.C., Sanderson M.J. Supertree bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome-scale data sets. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:426-440.
6. Crayn D.M., Quinn C.J. The evolution of the atpB-rbcL intergenic spacer in the epacrids (Ericales) and its systematic and evolutionary implications. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 2000, 16:238-252.
7. Crayn D.M., Kron K.A., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J. Delimitation of Epacridaceae: preliminary molecular evidence. Ann. Bot. 1996, 77:317-322.
8. Crayn D.M., Kron K.A., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J. Phylogenetics and evolution of epacrids: a molecular analysis using the plastid gene rbcL with a reappraisal of the position of Lebetanthus. Aust. J. Bot. 1998, 46:187-200.
9. Creevey C.J., McInerney J.O. Clann: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:390-392.
10. de Queiroz A., Gatesy J. The supermatrix approach to systematics. TREE 2006, 22:34-41.
11. Douady C.J., Delsuc F., Boucher Y., Doolittle W.F., Douzery E.J.P. Comparison of bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogeneitc reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010, 20:248-254.
12. Edgar R.C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32:1792-1797.
13. Goremykin V.V., Holland B.R., Hirsch-Ernst K.I., Hellwig F.H. Analysis of Acorus calamus chloroplast genome and its phylogenetic implications. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1813-1822.
14. Holland B.R., Huber K.T., Moulton V., Lockhart P.J. Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1459-1461.
15. Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 2001, 17:754-755.
16. Huson D., Bryant D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:254-267.
17. Kolaczowski B., Thornton J.W. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 2004, 431:980-984.
18. Kron K.A. Phylogenetic relationships of Empetraceae, Epacridaceae, Ericaceae, Monotropaceae, and Pyrolaceae: evidence from nuclear ribosomal 18s sequence data. Ann. Bot. 1996, 77:293-304.
19. Kron K.A., Chase M.W. Systematics of the Ericaceae, Empetraceae, Epacridaceae and related taxa based upon rbcL sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 1993, 80:735-741.
20. Kron K.A., Fuller R., Crayn D.M., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J. Phylogenetic relationships of epacrids and vaccinioids (Ericaceae s. l.) based on matK sequence data. Plant Syst. Evol. 1999, 218:55-65.
21. Kron K.A., Judd W.S., Crayn D.M. Phylogenetic analyses of Andromedeae (Ericaceae subfam. Vaccinioideae) 1. Am. J. Bot. 1999, 86:1290-1300.
22. Kron K.A., Judd W.S., Stevens P.F., Crayn D.M., Anderberg A.A., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J., Luteyn J.L. Phylogenetic classification of Ericaceae: molecular and morphological evidence. Bot. Rev. 2002, 68:335-423.
23. Lemmon A.R., Brown J.M., Stanger-Hall K., Lemmon E.M. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Inference. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:130-145.
24. Lopez P., Casane D., Philippe H. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:1-7.
25. Malia M.J., Lipscombe D.L., Allard M.W. The misleading effects of composite taxa in supermatrices. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 2003, 27:522-527.
26. Nylander, J.A.A., 2004. MrModeltest Program Distributed by the Author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University.
27. Phillips M.J., Delsuc F., Penny D. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1455-1458.
28. Pirie M.D., Humphreys A.M., Galley C., Barker N.P., Verboom A., Orlovich D., Draffin E., Lloyd S.J., Baeza K., Negritto C.M., Ruiz M., Sanchez E., Reimer J.H.C., Linder H.P. A novel supermatrix approach improves resolution of phylogenetic relationships in a comprehensive sample of danthonioid grasses. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 2008, 48:1106-1119.
29. Powell J.M., Crayn D.M., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J., Morrison D.A., Chapman A.R. A re-assessment of relationships within Epacridaceae. Ann. Bot. 1996, 77:305-316.
30. Pupko T., Huchon D., Cho Y., Okada N., Hasegawa M. Combining multiple data sets in a likelihood analysis: which models are best?. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:2294-2307.
31. Quinn C.J., Crayn D.M., Heslewood M.M., Brown E.A., Gadek P.A. A molecular estimate of the phylogeny of Styphelieae (Ericaceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2003, 16:581-594.
32. Quinn C.J., Brown E.A., Heslewood M.M., Crayn D.M. Generic concepts in Styphelieae (Ericaceae): the Cyathodes group. Aust. Syst. Bot. 2005, 18:439-454.
33. Ragan M.A. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 1992, 1:53-58.
34. Ren F., Tanaka H., Yang Z. A likelihood look at the supermatrix - supertree controversy. Gene 2009, 441:119-125.
35. Rodrigo A., Steel M. Maximum likelihood supertrees. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57(2):243-250.
36. Sanderson M.J., Purvis A., Henze C. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Tree 1998, 13:105-109.
37. Sanderson M.J., McMahon M.M., Steel M. Phylogenomics with incomplete taxon coverage: the limits to inference. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10:155.
38. Stamatakis A., Hoover P., Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web-servers. Syst. Biol. 2008, 75:758-771.
39. Stephens P.F. Ericaceae. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants 2004, 145-194. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. K. Kubitzki (Ed.).
40. Swenson M.S., Suri R., Linder R., Warnow T. An experimental study of Quartets MaxCut and other supertree methods. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 2011, 6:7.
41. Taaffe G., Brown E.A., Crayn D.M., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J. Generic concepts in Styphelieae: resolving the limits of Leucopogon. Aust. J. Bot. 2001, 49:107-120.
42. Wagstaff S.J., Dawson M.I., Venter S., Munzinger J., Crayn D.M., Steane D.A., Lemson K.L. Origin, diversification, and classification of the Australasian genus Dracophyllum (Richeeae, Ericaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 2010, 97:235-258.
43. Western Australian Herbarium, 1998. FloraBase - The Western Australian Flora. Department of Environment and Conservation. http://florabase.dec.wa.gov.au/.
44. Wiens J.J. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:528-538.
45. Wiens J.J. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. J. Biomed. Inform. 2006, 39:34-42.
46. 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.
47. Wilcox T.P., Zwickl D.J., Heath T.A., Hillis D.M. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 2002, 25:361-371.
48. Wilkinson M., Pisani D., Cotton J.A., Corfe I. Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:823-831.
49. Yang Z. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 1996, 42:587-596.