BaCoCa - A heuristic software tool for the parallel assessment of sequence biases in hundreds of gene and taxon partitions

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 94-98

  Kück, Patrick ^a   Struck, Torsten H ^a  

^a ZOOLOGISCHES FORSCHUNGSMUSEUM ALEXANDER KOENIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

GC content; Invariant positions; Phylogenomics; RCFV; Saturation; Software

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; DNA SEQUENCE; GENOMICS; INVARIANT POSITIONS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; RCFV; SATURATION; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

GC CONTENT; INVARIANT POSITIONS; PHYLOGENOMICS; RCFV; SATURATION; SOFTWARE;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84885340770     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bapteste E., Susko E., Leigh J., MacLeod D., Charlebois R.L., Doolittle W.F. Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?. BMC Evol. Biol. 2005, 5:33.
2. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P., Cardillo M., Jones K.E., MacPhee R.D.E., Beck R.M.D., Grenyer R., Price S.A., Vos R.A., Gittleman J.L., Purvis A. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 2007, 446:507-512.
3. Brochier C., Bapteste E., Moreira D., Philippe H. Eubacterial phylogeny based on translational apparatus proteins. Trends Gene. 2002, 18:1-5.
4. Collins T.M., Fedrigo O., Naylor G.J.P. Choosing the best genes for the job: the case for stationary genes in genome-scale phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:493-500.
5. Dordel J., Fisse F., Purschke G., Struck T.H. Phylogenetic position of Sipuncula derived from multi-gene and phylogenomic data and its implication for the evolution of segmentation. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 2010, 48:197-207.
6. Edgar R.C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucl. Acids Res. 2004, 32:1792-1797.
7. Fedrigo O., Adams D.C., Naylor G.J.P. DRUIDS - detection of regions with unexpected internal deviation from stationarity. J. Exp. Zool. 2005, 304B:119-128.
8. Gee H. Ending incongruence. Nature 2003, 425:782.
9. Goldman N. Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B 1998, 265:1779-1786.
10. Halanych K.M., Robinson T.J. Multiple substitutions affect the phylogenetic utility of cytochrome b and 12S rDNA data: examining a rapid radiation in leporid (Lagomorpha) evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 1999, 48:369-379.
11. Hejnol A., Obst M., Stamatakis A., Ott M., Rouse G.W., Edgecombe G.D., Martinez P., Baguñà J., Bailly X., Jondelius U., Wiens M., Müller W.E.G., Seaver E., Wheeler W.C., Martindale M.Q., Giribet G., Dunn C.W. Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2009, 276:4261-4270.
12. Jeffroy O., Brinkmann H., Delsuc F., Philippe H. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?. Trends Gene. 2006, 22:225-231.
13. Jones M., Koutsovoulos G., Blaxter M. IPhy: an integrated phylogenetic workbench for supermatrix analyses. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:30.
14. Katoh K., Kuma K.-i., Toh H., Miyata T. MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucl. Acids Res. 2005, 33:511-518.
15. Kück P., Meusemann K. FASconCAT: convenient handling of data matrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 56:1115-1118.
16. 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.
17. Lockhart P.J., Penny D. The problem of GC content, evolutionary trees and the origins of CHL-a/b photosynthetic organelles: are the prochlorophytes a eubacterial model for higher plant photosynthesis?. Research in Photosynthesis 1992, 499-505. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. N. Murata (Ed.).
18. Lockhart P.J., Howe C., Bryant D.A., Beanland T.J., Larkum A.W.D. Substitutional bias confounds inference of cyanelle origins from sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 1992, 34:153-162.
19. Lopez-Giraldez F., Townsend J. PhyDesign: an online application for profiling phylogenetic informativeness. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 11:152.
20. Maddison, W.P., Maddison, D.R., 2009. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis.
21. Massingham T., Goldman N. EDIBLE: experimental design and information calculations in phylogenetics. Bioinformatics 2000, 16:294-295.
22. Matte-Tailliez O., Brochier C., Forterre P., Philippe H. Archaeal phylogeny based on ribosomal proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:631-639.
23. Nabholz B., Künstner A., Wang R., Jarvis E.D., Ellegren H. Dynamic evolution of base composition: causes and consequences in avian phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011, 28:2197-2210.
24. Nesnidal M.P., Helmkampf M., Bruchhaus I., Hausdorf B. Compositional heterogeneity and phylogenomic inference of metazoan relationships. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010, 27:2095-2104.
25. Nosenko T., Schreiber F., Adamska M., Adamski M., Eitel M., Hammel J., Maldonado M., Müller W.E.G., Nickel M., Schierwater B., Vacelet J., Wiens M., Wörheide G. Deep metazoan phylogeny: when different genes tell different stories. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2013, 67:223-233.
26. Perna N.T., Kocher T.D. Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. J. Mol. Evol. 1995, 41:353-358.
27. Philippe H., Brinkmann H., Lavrov D.V., Littlewood D.T.J., Manuel M., Wörheide G., Baurain D. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9:3.
28. Phillips M.J., Penny D. The root of the mammalian tree inferred from whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 28:171-185.
29. Phillips M.J., Delsuc F., Penny D. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1455-1458.
30. Regier J.C., Shultz J.W., Ganley A.R.D., Hussey A., Shi D., Ball B., Zwick A., Stajich J.E., Cummings M.P., Martin J.W., Cunningham C.W. Resolving arthropod phylogeny: exploring phylogenetic signal within 41 kb of protein-coding nuclear gene sequence. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57:920-938.
31. Reyes A., Gissi C., Pesole G., Saccone C. Asymmetrical directional mutation pressure in the mitochondrial genome of mammals. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1998, 15:957-966.
32. Roure B., Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N., Philippe H. SCaFoS: a tool for selection, concatenation and fusion of sequences for phylogenomics. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7(Suppl 1):S2.
33. Simmons M.P. Misleading results of likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses in the presence of missing data. Cladistics 2012, 28:208-222.
34. Simmons M.P. Radical instability and spurious branch support by likelihood when applied to matrices with non-random distributions of missing data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 62:472-484.
35. Simmons M.P., Freudenstein J.V. Spurious 99% bootstrap and jackknife support for unsupported clades. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2011, 61:177-191.
36. Stiller J. Experimental design and statistical rigor in phylogenomics of horizontal and endosymbiotic gene transfer. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 11:259.
37. Strimmer K., von Haeseler A. Likelihood-mapping: a simple method to visualize phylogenetic content of a sequence alignment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1997, 94:6815-6819.
38. Struck T.H., Nesnidal M.P., Purschke G., Halanych K.M. Detecting possibly saturated positions in 18S and 28S sequences and their influence on phylogenetic reconstruction of Annelida (Lophotrochozoa). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2008, 48:628-645.
39. Struck T.H., Paul C., Hill N., Hartmann S., Hösel C., Kube M., Lieb B., Meyer A., Tiedemann R., Purschke G., Bleidorn C. Phylogenomic analyses unravel annelid evolution. Nature 2011, 471:95-98.
40. Susko E., Roger A.J. The probability of correctly resolving a split as an experimental design criterion in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:811-821.
41. Susko E., Leigh J., Doolittle W.F., Bapteste E. Visualizing and assessing phylogenetic congruence of core gene sets: a case study of the {gamma}-proteobacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:1019-1030.
42. Takezaki N., Gojobori T. Correct and incorrect vertebrate phylogenies obtained by the entire mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1999, 16:590-601.
43. Tamura K., Peterson D., Peterson N., Stecher G., Nei M., Kumar S. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011, 28:2731-2739.
44. Townsend J.P. Profiling phylogenetic informativeness. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:222-231.
45. Townsend J.P., Lopez-Giraldez F. Optimal selection of gene and ingroup taxon sampling for resolving phylogenetic relationships. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:446-457.
46. Townsend J.P., Su Z., Tekle Y.I. Phylogenetic signal and noise: predicting the power of a data set to resolve phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:835-849.
47. White W., Hills S., Gaddam R., Holland B., Penny D. Treeness triangles: visualizing the loss of phylogenetic signal. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:2029-2039.
48. Xia X. DAMBE5: a comprehensive software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30:1720-1728.
49. Xia X., Xie Z., Salemi M., Chen L., Wang Y. An index of substitution saturation and its application. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 26:1-7.
50. Zhong M., Hansen B., Nesnidal M.P., Golombek A., Halanych K.M., Struck T.H. Detecting the symplesiomorphy trap: a multigene phylogenetic analysis for terebelliform annelids. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 11:369.