Random roots and lineage sorting

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 12-20

  Rosenfeld, Jeffrey A ^a,b   Payne, Ansel ^b   DeSalle, Rob ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

^b DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gene tree species tree; Lineage sorting; Phylogenies; Random rooting

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DROSOPHILA; GENE; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOUSE; PHYLOGENY; PRIMATE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; YEAST;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MICE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; PRIMATES; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; YEASTS;

EID: 84860573938     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.029     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ané C., Larget B., Baum D.A., Smith S.D., Rokas A. Bayesian estimation of concordance among gene trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:412-426.
2. Ané C. Reconstructing concordance trees and testing the coalescent model from genome-wide data sets. Estimating Species Trees: Practical and Theoretical Aspects 2010, 35-52. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. L.L. Knowles, L.S. Kubatko (Eds.).
3. Bansal M.S., Burleigh J.G., Eulenstein O. Efficient genome-scale phylogenetic analysis under the duplication-loss and deep coalescence cost models. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11(Suppl. 1):S42.
4. Carstens B.C., Knowles L.L. Estimating species phylogeny from gene-tree probabilities despite incomplete lineage sorting: an example from Melanoplus grasshoppers. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:400-411.
5. Degnan J.H., Rosenberg N.A. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2:762-768.
6. Degnan J.H., Salter L.A. Gene tree distributions under the coalescent process. Evolution 2005, 59:24-37.
7. Degnan J.H., Rosenberg N.A. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24(6):332-340. Epub 2009 March 21, Review.
8. Dujon B. Yeast evolutionary genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11(7):512-524. Review.
9. Edwards S.V., Liu L., Pearl D.K. High resolution species trees without concatenation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104:5936-5941. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent.
10. Edwards S.V. Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?. Evolution 2009, 63:1-19.
11. Farris J.S. Outgroups and parsimony. Syst. Zool. 1982, 31:328-334.
12. Graham S.W., Olmstead R.G., Barrett S.C. Rooting phylogenetic trees with distant outgroups: a case study from the commelinoid monocots. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19(10):1769-1781.
13. Hedtke S.M., Townsend T.M., Hillis D.M. Resolution of phylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxon sampling. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:522-529.
14. Hobolth A., Christensen O.F., Mailund T., Schierup M.H. Genomic relationships and speciation times of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla inferred from a coalescent hidden Markov model. PLoS Genet. 2007, 3(2):e7. Epub 2006 November 30.
15. Hobolth A., Dutheil J.Y., Hawks J., Schierup M.H., Mailund T. Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee, and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection. Genome Res. 2011, 21(3):349-356. Epub 2011 January 26.
16. Gatesy J., Baker R.H. Hidden likelihood support in genomic data: can forty-five wrongs make a right?. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54(3):483-492.
17. Gatesy J., DeSalle R., Wahlberg N. How many genes should a systematist sample? Conflicting insights from a phylogenomic matrix characterized by replicated incongruence. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56(2):355-363.
18. Knowles L.L., Kubatko L.S. Estimating species trees: practical and theoretical aspects 2010, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
19. Knowles L.L. Estimating species trees: methods of phylogenetic analysis when there is incongruence across genes. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:463-467.
20. Kubatko L.S., Degnan J.H. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56(1):17-24.
21. Lartillot N., Brinkmann H., Philippe H. Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7(Suppl. 4):S4.
22. Lyons-Weiler J., Hoelzer G.A., Tausch R.J. Optimal outgroup analysis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1998, 64:493-511.
23. Machado C.A., Hey J. The causes of phylogenetic conflict in a classic Drosophila species group. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2003, 270(1520):1193-1202.
24. Machado C.A., Kliman R.M., Markert J.A., Hey J. Inferring the history of speciation from multilocus DNA sequence data: the case of Drosophila pseudoobscura and close relatives. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19(4):472-488.
25. Maddison W.P., Donoghue M.J., Maddison D.R. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Syst. Zool. 1984, 33:83-103.
26. Maddison W.P., Knowles L.L. Inferring phylogeny despite incomplete lineage sorting. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:21-30.
27. Maddison W.P. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 1997, 46:523-536.
28. McCormack J.E., Huang H., Knowles L.L. Maximum likelihood estimates of species trees: how accuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58(5):501-508. Epub 2009 August 20.
29. Meng C., Kubatko L.S. Detecting hybrid speciation in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting using gene tree incongruence: a model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2009, 75(1):35-45. Epub 2008 November 5.
30. Milinkovitch M.C., Lyons-Weiler J. Finding optimal ingroup topologies and convexities when the choice of outgroups is not obvious. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1998, 9:348-357.
31. Miyamoto M.M., Fitch W.M. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 1995, 44:64-76.
32. Pamilo P., Nei M. Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1988, 5:568-583.
33. Perelman P., Johnson W.E., Roos C., Seuánez H.N., Horvath J.E., Moreira M.A., Kessing B., Pontius J., Roelke M., Rumpler Y., Schneider M.P., Silva A., O'Brien S.J., Pecon-Slattery J. A molecular phylogeny of living primates. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7(3):e1001342. Epub 2011 March 17.
34. Phillips M.J., Delsuc F., Penny D. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1455-1458.
35. Pollard D., Iyer V.N., Moses A.M., Eisen M.B. Widespread discordance of gene trees with species tree in Drosophila: evidence for incomplete lineage sorting. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2:e173.
36. Qiu Y.L., Lee J., Whitlock B.A., Bernasconi-Quadroni F., Dombrovska O. Was the ANITA rooting of the angiosperm phylogeny affected by long-branch attraction? Amborella, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Trimeniaceae, and Austrobaileya. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2001, 18(9):1745-1753.
37. Rokas A., Williams B.L., King N., Carroll S.B. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 2003, 425(6960):798-804.
38. Roos C., Zinner D., Kubatko L.S., Schwarz C., Yang M., Meyer D., Nash S.D., Xing J., Batzer M.A., Brameier M., Leendertz F.H., Ziegler T., Perwitasari-Farajallah D., Nadler T., Walter L., Osterholz M. Nuclear versus mitochondrial DNA: evidence for hybridization in colobine monkeys. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 24(11):77.
39. Rosenberg N.A. The probability of topological concordance of gene trees and species trees. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2002, 61:225-247.
40. Siddall M.E. Success of parsimony in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1998, 13:1187-1191.
41. Siddall M.E. Long-branch repulsion by likelihood in the Farris Zone. Cladistics 1998, 14:209-220.
42. Siddall M.E., Whiting M. Long-branch abstractions. Cladistics 1999, 15:9-24.
43. Smith A.B. Rooting molecular trees: problems and strategies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1992, 51:279-292.
44. Swofford, D.L., 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
45. Taylor D.J., Piel W.H. An assessment of accuracy, error, and conflict with support values from genome-scale phylogenetic data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21.
46. Than C., Nakhleh L. Species tree inference by minimizing deep coalescences. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5(9):e1000501. Epub 2009 September 11.
47. Ting N., Tosi A.J., Li Y., Zhang Y.P., Disotell T.R. Phylogenetic incongruence between nuclear and mitochondrial markers in the Asian colobines and the evolution of the langurs and leaf monkeys. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2008, 46(2):466-474. Epub 2007 November 28.
48. Watrous L.E., Wheeler Q.E. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 1981, 30:1-11.
49. Wheeler W.C. Nucleic acid sequence phylogeny and random outgroups. Cladistics 1990, 6:363-367.
50. White M.A., Ané C., Dewey C.N., Larget B.R., Payseur B.A. Fine scale phylogenetic discordance across the house mouse genome. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5:e1000729.
51. Wong A., Jensen J.D., Pool J.E., Aquadro C.F. Phylogenetic incongruence in the Drosophila melanogaster species group. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2007, 43(3):1138-1150. Epub 2006 September 9.
52. Yang H., Bell T.A., Churchill G.A. Pardo-Manuel de Villena F. On the subspecific origin of the laboratory mouse. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39:1100-1107.
53. Yu Y., Than C., Degnan J.H., Nakhleh L. Coalescent histories on phylogenetic networks and detection of hybridization despite incomplete lineage sorting. Syst. Biol. 2011, 60(2):138-149. Epub 2011 January 19.