Modeling stabilizing selection: Expanding the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model of adaptive evolution

Evolution

Volumn 66, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 2369-2383

  Beaulieu, Jeremy M ^a   Jhwueng, Dwueng Chwuan ^b,c   Boettiger, Carl ^d   O'Meara, Brian C ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^c FENG CHIA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Brownian motion; Comparative method; Continuous characters Hansen model; Ornstein Uhlenbeck

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BROWNIAN MOTION; CLADISTICS; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; GENOME; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION; STABILIZATION; STOCHASTICITY;

ADAPTATION; ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GENOME SIZE; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; PLANT GENOME;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANGIOSPERMS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; GENOME SIZE; GENOME, PLANT; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION, GENETIC;

MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 84864320749     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01619.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 2009. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161:105-121.
3. Beaulieu, J. M., I. J. Leitch, S. Patel, A. Pendharkar, and C. A. Knight. 2008. Genome size is a strong predictor of cell size and stomatal density in angiosperms. New Phytol. 179:975-986.
4. Beaulieu, J. M., S. A. Smith, and I. J. Leitch. 2010. On the tempo of genome size evolution in angiosperms. J. Bot. doi:.
5. Bennett, M. D., and I. J. Leitch. 2010. Plant DNA C-values database (release 5.0, Dec. 2010). Available at.
6. Bond, W. J. 1989. The tortoise and the hare: ecology of angiosperm dominance and gymnosperm persistence. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 36:227-249.
7. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York, Springer-Verlag.
8. Butler, M. A., and A. A. King. 2004. Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am. Nat. 164:683-695.
9. Cantino, P. D., J. A. Doyle, S. W. Graham, W. S. Judd, R. G. Olmstead, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, and M. J. Donoghue. 2007. Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta. Taxon 56:822-846.
10. Chase, M. W., M. F. Fay, D. S. Devey, O. Maurin, N. Rønsted, T. J. Davies, Y. Pillon, G. Petersen, O. Seberg, M. N. Tamura, et al. 2006. Multigene analyses of monocot relationships: a summary. Aliso 22:63-75.
11. Collar, D. C., B. C. O'Meara, P. C. Wainwright, and T. J. Near. 2009. Piscivory limits diversification of feeding morphology in centrarchid fishes. Evolution 63:1557-1573.
12. Davis, C. C., M. Latvis, D. L. Nickrent, K. J. Wurdack, and D. A. Baum. 2007. Floral gigantism in Rafflesiaceae. Science 315:1812.
13. Donoghue, M. J. 2008. A phylogenetic perspective on the distribution of plant species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:11549-11555.
14. Eastman, J. M., M. E. Alfaro, P. Joyce, A. L. Hipp, and L. J. Harmon. 2011. AUTEUR: a novel comparative method for modeling shifts in the rate of character evolution on trees. Evolution: 65:3578-3589.
15. Edwards, E. J., and S. A. Smith. 2010. Phylogenetic analyses reveal the shady history of C4 grasses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 6:2532-2537.
16. Gaut, B. S., S. V. Muse, W. D. Clark, and M. T. Clegg. 1992. Relative rates of nucleotide substitution at the rbcL locus of monocotyledonous plants. J. Mol. Evol. 35:292-303.
17. Gaut, B. S., B. R. Morton, B. C. McCraig, and M. T. Clegg. 1996. Substitution rate comparisons between grasses and palms: synonymous rate differences at the nuclear gene Adh parallel rate differences at the plastid gene rbcL. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:10274-10279.
18. Gaut, B. S., L. G. Clark, J. F. Wendel, and S. V. Muse. 1997. Comparisons of the molecular evolutionary process at rbcL and ndhF in the grass family (Poaceae). Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:769-777.
19. Green, P. J. 1995. Reversible jump Markov chain monte carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82:711-732.
20. Hansen, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341-1351.
21. Hansen, T. F., and E. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:1404-1417.
22. Harmon, L. J., J. Melville, A. Larson, and J. B. Losos. 2008. The role of geography and ecological opportunity in the diversification of day geckos (Phelsuma). Syst. Biol. 57:562-573.
23. Harmon, L. J., J. B. Losos, T. J. Davies, R. G. Gillespie, J. L. Gittleman, W. B. Jennings, K. H. Kozak, M. A. McPeek, F. Moreno-Roark, T. J. Near, et al. 2010. Early bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data. Evolution 64:2385-2396.
24. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, and M. E. Alfaro. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1123-1133.
25. Kass, R. E., and A. E. Raftery. 1995. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90:773-795.
26. Lillegraven, J. A. 1975. Biological considerations of the marsupial-placentaal dichotomy. Evolution 29:707-722.
27. Lynch, M. 2007. The origins of genome architecture. Sinauer Assocs., Inc., Sunderland.
28. McMahon, M. M., and M. J. Sanderson. 2006. Phylogenetic supermatrix analysis of GenBank sequences from 2228 papilionoid legumes. Syst. Biol. 55:818-836.
29. Oliver, M. J., D. Petrov, D. D. Ackerly, P. Falkowski, and O. M. Schofield. 2007. The mode and tempo of genome size evolution in eukaryotes. Genome Res. 17:594-601.
30. O'Meara, B. C., C. Ane, M. J. Sanderson, and P. C. Wainwright. 2006. Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution. Evolution 60:922-933.
31. Ohri, D. 2005. Climate and growth form: the consequences for genome size in plants. Plant Biol. 7:449-458.
32. Pagel, M. 1999. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 48:612-622.
33. Pagel, M., and A. Meade. 2006. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Am. Nat. 167:808-825.
34. Petit, R. J., and A. Hampe. 2006. Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:187-214.
35. Pinto, G., D. L. Mahler, L. J. Harmon, and J. B. Losos. 2008. Testing the island effect in adaptive radiation: rates and patterns of morphological diversification in Caribbean and mainland Anolis lizards. Proc. R. Soc. B 275:2749-2757.
36. Revell, L. J., L. D. Mahler, P. R. Peres-Neto, and B. D. Redelings. 2011. A new phylogenetic method for identifying exceptional phenotypic diversification. Evolution: 66:135-146.
37. Sanderson, M. J. 2003. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19:301-302.
38. Sanderson, M. J., D. Boss, D. Chen, K. A. Cranston, and A. Wehe. 2008. The PhyLoTA browser: processing GenBank for molecular phylogenetics research. Syst. Biol. 57:335-346.
39. Sears, K. E. 2004. Constraints on the morphological evolution of marsupial shoulder girdles. Evolution 58:2353-2370.
40. Smith, S. A., and J. M. Beaulieu. 2009. Life history influences rates of climatic niche evolution in flowering plants. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276:4345-4352.
41. Smith, S. A., and M. J. Donoghue. 2008. Rates of molecular evolution are linked to life history in flowering plants. Science 322:86-89.
42. Smith, S. A., J. M. Beaulieu, and M. J. Donoghue. 2009. Mega-phylogeny approach for comparative biology: an alternative to supertree and supermatrix approaches. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:1-12.
43. Smith, S. A., J. M. Beaulieu, A. Stamatakis, and M. J. Donoghue. 2011. Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. Am. J. Bot. 98:1-12.
44. Stamatakis, A. 2006. Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690.
45. Stebbins, G. L. 1938. Cytological characteristics associated with different growth habits in dicotyledons. Am. J. Bot. 25:189-198.
46. Stebbins, G. L. 1981. Why are there so many species of flowering plants? Bioscience 31:573-577.
47. Thomas, G. H., R. P. Freckleton, and T. Szekely. 2006. Comparative analyses of the influence of developmental mode on phenotypic diversification rates in shorebirds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273:1619-1624.
48. Thomson, R. C., and H. B. Shaffer. 2010. Sparse supermatrices for phylogenetic inference: taxonomy, alignment, rogue taxa, and the phylogeny of living turtles. Syst. Biol. 59:42-58.
49. Verdú, M. 2002. Age at maturity and diversification in woody angiosperms. Evolution 56:1352-1361.