Phylogenetic signal and noise: Predicting the power of a data set to resolve phylogeny

Systematic Biology

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 835-849

  Townsend, Jeffrey P ^a,b   Su, Zhuo ^a   Tekle, Yonas I ^a,c  

^a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology ^*  (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SPELMAN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimental design; noise; phylogeny; polytomy; power; resolution; saturation; signal

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME C OXIDASE; INSECT PROTEIN; PROTEIN; RIBOSOME PROTEIN; RNA 28S;

ALVEOLATA; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CELL NUCLEUS; CLASSIFICATION; DNA SEQUENCE; EVALUATION; GENE; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; WASP;

ALVEOLATA; ANIMALS; CELL NUCLEUS; CLASSIFICATION; ELECTRON TRANSPORT COMPLEX IV; GENES, INSECT; INSECT PROTEINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; PROTEINS; RIBOSOMAL PROTEINS; RNA, RIBOSOMAL, 28S; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; WASPS;

EID: 84865202478     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys036     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Baldauf S.L., Roger A.J., Wenk-Siefert I., Doolittle W.F. 2000. A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data. Science. 290:972-977.
2. Bandelt H.J., Dress A. 1986. Reconstructing the shape of a tree from observed dissimilarity data. Adv. Appl. Math. 7:309-343.
3. Brockington S.F., Alexandre R., Ramdial J., Moore M.J., Crawley S., Dhingra A., Hilu J., Soltis D.E., Soltis P.S. 2009. Phylogeny of the caryophyllales sensu lato: revisiting hypotheses on pollination biology and perianth differentiation in the core caryophyllales. Int. J. Plant Sci. 170:627-643.
4. Burki F., Inagaki Y., Brate J., Archibald J.M., Keeling P.J., Cavalier-Smith T., Sakaguchi M., Hashimoto T., Horak A., Kumar S., Klaveness D., Jakobsen K.S., Pawlowski J., Shalchian-Tabrizi K. 2009. Large-scale phylogenomic analyses reveal that two enigmatic protist lineages, Telonemia and Centroheliozoa, are related to photosynthetic chromalveolates. Genome Biol. Evol. 1: 231-238.
5. Burki F., Shalchian-Tabrizi K., Minge M., Skjaeveland A., Niko-laev S.I., Jakobsen K.S., Pawlowski J. 2007. Phylogenomics reshuffes the eukaryotic supergroups. PLoS One. 2:e790. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000790.
6. Crawley S.S., Hilu K.W. 2011. Impact of missing data, gene choice, and taxon sampling on phylogenetic reconstruction: the Caryophyl-lales (angiosperms). Plant Syst. Evol. 606. doi:10.1007/s00606-011-0544-x.
7. DeBry R.W. 2003. Identifying conficting signal in a multigene analysis reveals a highly resolved tree: the phylogeny of Rodentia (Mammalia). Syst. Biol. 52:604-617.
8. Fischer M., Steel M. 2009. Sequence length bounds for resolving a deep phylogenetic divergence. J. Theor. Biol. 256:247-252.
9. Goldman N. 1998. Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics. Proc. Biol. Sci. 265:1779-1786.
10. Graybeal A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a diffcult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
11. Hackett J.D., Yoon H.S., Li S., Reyes-Prieto A., Rummele S.E., Bhattacharya D. 2007. Phylogenomic analysis supports the monophyly of cryptophytes and haptophytes and the association of Rhizaria with Chromalveolates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24: 1702-1713.
12. Hillis D.M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature. 383:130-131.
13. Hillis D.M., Huelsenbeck J.P. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. J. Hered. 83:189-195.
14. Hillis D.M., Pollock D.D., McGuire J.A., Zwickl D.J. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
15. Jeffroy O., Brinkmann H., Delsuc F., Philippe H. 2006. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends Genet. 22:225-231.
16. Klopfstein S., Kropf C., Quicke D.L. 2010. An evaluation of phy-logenetic informativeness profles and the molecular phylogeny of Diplazontinae (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Syst. Biol. 59: 226-241.
17. Lartillot N., Brinkmann H., Philippe H. 2007. Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol. Biol. 7 (Suppl 1):S4.
18. Lartillot N., Philippe H. 2004. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1095-1109.
19. Mooers A.O., Page R.D.M., Purvis A., Harvey P.H. 1995. Phylogenetic noise leads to unbalanced cladistic tree reconstructions. Syst. Biol. 44:332-342.
20. Nadarajah S., Kotz S. 2008. Exact distribution of the max/min of two Gaussian random variables. IEEE T. VLSI Syst. 16:210-212.
21. Nakamura Y., Hashimoto T., Kamaishi T., Adachi J., Nakamura F., Okamoto K., Hasegawa M. 1996. Phylogenetic position of kineto-plastid protozoa inferred from the protein phylogenies of elongation factors 1 alpha and 2. J. Biochem. 119:70-79.
22. Naylor G.J., Brown W.M. 1997. Structural biology and phylogenetic estimation. Nature. 388:527-528.
23. Naylor G.J., Brown W.M. 1998. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chor-date phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:61-76.
24. Nishihara H., Okada N., Hasegawa M. 2007. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8:R199.
25. Parfrey L.W., Grant J.R., Tekle Y.I., Lasek-Nesselquist E., Morrison H.G., Sogin M.L., Patterson D.J., Katz L.A. 2010. Broadly sampled multigene analyses yield a well-resolved eukaryotic tree of life. Syst. Biol. 59:518-533.
26. Phillips M.J., Delsuc F., Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21: 1455-1458.
27. Rannala B., Huelsenbeck J.P., Yang Z., Nielsen R. 1998. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of large phylogneies. Syst. Biol. 47:702-710.
28. Rokas A., Carroll S.B. 2006. Bushes in the tree of life. PLoS Biol. 4:e352.
29. Rokas A., Carroll S.B. 2008. Frequent and widespread parallel evolution of protein sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1943-1953.
30. Saitou N., Nei M. 1986. The number of nucleotides required to determine the branching order of 3 species, with special reference to the Human-Chimpanzee-Gorilla divergence. J. Mol. Evol. 24: 189-204.
31. 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.
32. Simmons M.P., Carr T.G., O'Neill K. 2004a. Relative character-state space, amount of potential phylogenetic information, and heterogeneity of nucleotide and amino acid characters. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32:913-926.
33. Simmons M.P., Reeves A., Davis J.I. 2004b. Character-state space versus rate of evolution in phylogenetic inference. Cladistics. 20: 191-204.
34. Soltis D.E., Albert V.A., Savolainen V., Hilu K., Qiu Y.-L., Chase M.W., Farris J.S., Stefanovic S. 2004. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and 'ending incongruence': a cautionary tale in phyloge-netics. Trends Plant Sci. 9:477-483.
35. Springer M.S., DeBry R.W., Douady C., Amrine H.M., Madsen O., de Jong W.W., Stanhope M.J. 2001. Mitochondrial versus nuclear gene sequences in deep-level mammalian phylogeny reconstruction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:132-143.
36. Sullivan J., Joyce P. 2005. Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:445-466.
37. Taylor F.J.R. 1999. Ultrastructure as a control for protistan molecular phylogeny. Am. Nat. 154:S125-S136.
38. Tekle Y.I., Grant J., Anderson O.R., Nerad T.A., Cole J.C., Patterson D.J., Katz L.A. 2008. Phylogenetic placement of diverse amoebae inferred from multigene analyses and assessment of clade stability within 'Amoebozoa' upon removal of varying rate classes of SSU-rDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 47:339-352.
39. Townsend J.P. 2007. Profling phylogenetic informativeness. Syst. Biol. 56:222-231.
40. Townsend J.P., Leuenberger C. 2011. Taxon sampling and the optimal rates of evolution for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 60: 358-365.
41. Townsend J.P., Lopez-Giraldez F. 2010. Optimal selection of gene and ingroup taxon sampling for resolving phylogenetic relationships. Syst. Biol. 59:446-457.
42. Walsh H.E., Kidd M.G., Moum T., Friesen V.L. 1999. Poly-tomies and the power of phylogenetic inference. Evolution. 53: 932-937.
43. Wang, H., Moore M.J., Soltis P.S., Bell C., Brockington S.F., Alexandre R., Davis C.C., Latvis M., Manchester S.R., Soltis D.E. 2009. Rosid radiation and the rapid rise of angiosperm-dominated forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106:3853-3858.
44. Wells D., Brown D. 1991. Histone and histone gene compilation and alignment update. Nucleic Acids Res. 19:2173-2188.
45. Wells D., McBride C. 1989. A comprehensive compilation and alignment of histones and histone genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 17: R311-R346.
46. Wenzel J.W., Siddall M.E. 1999. Noise. Cladistics. 15:51-64.
47. Wiens J.J., Chippindale P.T., Hillis D.M. 2003. When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders. Syst. Biol. 52:501-514.
48. Yang Z. 1998. On the best evolutionary rate for phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 47:125-133.
49. Zwickl D.J., Hillis D.M. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:588-598.