A phylogeny of Bromeliaceae (Poales, Monocotyledoneae) derived from an evaluation of nine supertree methods

Journal of Systematics and Evolution

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 743-757

  Escobedo Sarti, Jeanett ^a   Ramírez, Ivõn ^a   Leopardi, Carlos ^a   Carnevali, Germán ^a,b   Magallón, Susana ^c   Duno, Rodrigo ^a   Mondragón, Demetria ^d  

^a CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA DE YUCATÁN   (Mexico)

^b Harvard University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^d INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Bromeliaceae; cladistics; meta analysis; phylogenetic analysis; supermatrix; supertree

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888312337     PISSN: 05291526     EISSN: 17596831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jse.12044     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Almeida RV, Ferreira A, Mantovani A, Gonzalves-Esteves V, de Oliveira R, Campostrini R., 2009. Morphological phylogenetics of Quesnelia (Bromeliaceae, Bromelioideae). Systematic Botany 34: 660-672.
2. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II (APG II). 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants. APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399-436.
3. Baker WJ, Savolainen V, Asmussen-Lange CB, Chase MW, Dransfield J, Forest F, Harley MM, Uhl NW, Wilkinson M., 2009. Complete generic level phylogenetic analyses of palms (Arecaceae) with comparisons of supertree and supermatrix approaches. Systematic Biology 58: 240-256.
4. Bansal M, Burleigh JG, Eulenstein O, Fernández-Baca D., 2010. Robinson-Foulds supertrees. Algorithms for Molecular Biology 5: 18.
5. Barfuss MJ, Samuel R, Till W, Stuessy F., 2005. Phylogenetic relationships in subfamily Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae) based on DNA sequence data from seven plastid regions. American Journal of Botany 92: 337-351. (Pubitemid 40210823)
6. Baum BR., 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining datasets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41: 3-10.
7. Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW., 2013. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research 41: D36-D42.
8. Bininda-Emonds ORP., 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Systematic Biology 52: 839-848. (Pubitemid 38106049)
9. Bininda-Emonds ORP., 2004. New uses for old phylogenies. In:, Bininda-Emonds ORP, ed. Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 3-14.
10. Bininda-Emonds ORP., 2011a. Partition Metric v.1.2.1. Program distributed by the author. AG Systematik und Evolutionsbiologie, IBU-Fakultät V, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg [online]. Available from http://www.molekularesystematik.uni-oldenburg.de/33997.html [accessed 5 November 2011].
11. Bininda-Emonds ORP., 2011b. QualiTree v.1.2.1. Program distributed by the author. AG Systematik und Evolutionsbiologie, IBU-Fakultät V, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg [online]. Available from http://www.molekularesystematik.uni-oldenburg.de/33997.html [accessed 5 November 2011].
12. Bininda-Emonds ORP., 2011c. SuperMRP.pl 1.2.1. Program distributed by the author. AG Systematik und Evolutionsbiologie, IBU-Fakultät V, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg [online]. Available from http://www.molekularesystematik.uni-oldenburg.de/33997.html [accessed 5 November 2011].
13. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL, Steel M., 2002. The (super)tree of life: Procedures, problems, and prospects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 265-289.
14. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Jones EK, Price SA, Grenyer R, Cardillo M, Habib M, Purvis A, Gittleman JL., 2003. Supertrees are a necessary not-so-evil: A comment on Gatesy et al. Systematic Biology 52: 724-729. (Pubitemid 37365053)
15. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Sanderson MJ., 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50: 565-579.
16. Bordewich M, Evans G, Semple C., 2006. Extending the limits of supertree methods. Annals of Combinatorics 10: 31-51. (Pubitemid 43954169)
17. Boyle B, Hopkins N, Lu Z, Raygoza GJA, Mozzherin D, Rees T, Matasci N, Narro ML, Piel HW, Mckay SJ, Lowry S, Freeland C, Peet RK, Enquist BJ., 2013. The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names. BMC Bioinformatics 14: 16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-16
18. Buerki S, Forest F, Salamin N, Alvarez N., 2011. Comparative performance of supertree algorithms in large data sets using the soapberry family (Sapindaceae) as a case study. Systematic Biology 60: 32-44.
19. Chen D, Eulenstein O, Fernández-Baca D., 2004. Rainbow: A toolbox for phylogenetic supertree construction and analysis. Bioinformatics 20: 2872-2873. (Pubitemid 39530186)
20. Chew TE, De Luna E, González D., 2010. Phylogenetic relationships of the pseudobulbous Tillandsia species (Bromeliaceae) inferred from cladistic analyses of ITS2, 5.8S ribosoamal RNA gene, and ETS sequences. Systematic Botany 35: 86-95.
21. Colles DH., 1980. Congruence between morphometric and allozyme data for Menidia species: A reappraisal. Systematic Zoology 29: 288-299.
22. Crayn DM, Winter K, Smith JAC., 2004. Multiple origins of crassulacean acid metabolism and the epiphytic habit in the Neotropical family Bromeliaceae. Plant Biology 101: 3703-3708. (Pubitemid 38338258)
23. Creevey CJ, McInerney JO., 2005. Clann: Investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21: 390-392. (Pubitemid 40246612)
24. Creevey CJ, McInerney JO., 2009. Trees from Trees: Construction of phylogenetic supertrees using Clann. In:, David Posada, ed. Bioinformatics for DNA sequences analysis, methods in molecular biology. Vigo: Humana Press. 139-161.
25. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D., 2012. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772.
26. Davis KE, Hill J., 2010. The supertree tool kit. BMC Research Notes 3: 95. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-95
27. Day WHE., 1985. Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. Journal of Classification 2: 7-28.
28. Edgar RC., 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32: 1792-1797. (Pubitemid 38832724)
29. Eulenstein O, Chen D, Gordon BJ, Fernández-Baca D, Sanderson M., 2004. Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Systematic Biology 53: 299-308. (Pubitemid 38611184)
30. Faria GAP, Wendt T, Brown GK., 2004. Cladistic relationships of Aechmea (Bromelioideae, Bromeliaceae) and allied genera. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 91: 303-319. (Pubitemid 38940918)
31. Forzza CR., 2001. Filogenia da Tribo Puyeae Wittm. e revisão taxonômica do gênero Encholirium Mart. ex Schult. & Schult. F. (Pitcairnioideae-Bromeliaceae). Ph.D. Dissertation. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.
32. Gatesy J, Baker RH, Hayashi C., 2004. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: Supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Systematic Biology 53: 342-355. (Pubitemid 38611188)
33. Givnish TJ, Barfuss HJ, Van EB, Riina R, Schulte K, Horres R, Gonsiska P, Jabaily R, Crayn DM, Smith JA, Winter K, Brown GK, Evans TM, Holst B, Luther H, Till W, Zizka G, Berry PE, Sytsma KJ., 2011. Phylogeny, adaptive radiation, and historical biogeography in Bromeliaceae: Insights from an eight-locus plastid phylogeny. American Journal of Botany 98: 1-24.
34. Givnish TJ, Millam KC, Berry PE, Sytsma KJ., 2007. Phylogeny, adaptive radiation, and historical biogeography of Bromeliaceae inferred from ndhF sequence data. Aliso 23: 3-26.
35. Gonsiska PA., 2010. Aspects of the evolutionary ecology of the genus Catopsis (Bromeliaceae). Ph.D. Dissertation. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
36. Gordon AD., 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. Journal of Classification 3: 31-39.
37. Hillis D, Heath T, John K., 2005. Analysis and visualization of tree space. Systematic Biology 54: 471-482. (Pubitemid 41040445)
38. Hornung-Leoni CT, Sosa V., 2008. Morphological phylogenetics of Puya subgenus Puya (Bromeliaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 156: 93-110.
39. Horres R, Kahl G, Weising K., 2000. Molecular phylogenetics of Bromeliaceae: Evidence from trnL (UAA) intron sequences of the chloroplast genome. Plant Biology 2: 306-315. (Pubitemid 30400214)
40. Horres R, Schulte K, Weising K, Zizka G., 2007. Systematics of Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae)-Evidence from molecular and anatomical studies. Aliso 23: 27-43.
41. Huson D, Nettles S, Warnow T., 1999. Disk-covering, a fast converging method for phylogenetic tree construction. Journal of Computational Biology 6: 369-386.
42. Jabaily RS, Sytsma KJ., 2010. Phylogenetics of Puya (Bromeliaceae): Placement, major lineages, and evolution of chilean species. American Journal of Botany 97: 337-356.
43. Kennedy M, Page RDM., 2002. Seabird supertrees: combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. The Auk 119: 88-108. (Pubitemid 34231482)
44. Landry PA, Lapointe FJ, Kirsch JAW., 1996. Estimating phylogenies from lacunose distance matrices: Additive is superior to ultrametric estimation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13: 818-823. (Pubitemid 26240086)
45. Lapointe FJ, Cucumel G., 1997. The average consensus procedure: Combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Systematic Biology 46: 306-312. (Pubitemid 127092068)
46. Lapointe FJ, Levasseur C., 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about average consensus, and more. In:, Bininda-Emonds ORP, ed. Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the tree of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 87-105.
47. Levasseur C, Lapointe FJ., 2001. War and peace in phylogenetics: a rejoinder on total evidence and consensus. Systematic Biology 50: 881-891.
48. Levasseur C, Lapointe FJ., 2006. Total evidence, average consensus and matrix representation with parsimony: What a difference distances make. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 2: 1-5.
49. Luther H., 2012. An alphabetical list of bromeliad binomials. Sarasota: Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and Bromeliad Society International.
50. Maddison WP, Maddison DR., 2007. Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75 [online]. Available from http://mesquiteproject.org [accessed 20 January 2013].
51. Matallana TG., 2010. Sistemas reproductivos, ecologia da polinização e hibridização em Bromeliaceae numa perspectiva local à evolutiva. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
52. Mez C., 1896. Bromeliacées. Monographie phanerogamarum: Prodromi nunc continuatio, nunc revisio auctoribus Alphoso et Casimir de Candolle aliisque botanicis ultra memoratis. Paris: G. Masson. 9: 1-951.
53. Müller K., 2004. PRAP-calculation of Bremer support for large data sets. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 780-782. (Pubitemid 38504464)
54. Nixon KC., 1999. The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 15: 407-414. (Pubitemid 30203167)
55. Page RDM., 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2452: 537-551.
56. Pinzõn J, Ramirez I, Carnevali G., 2011. Morphometric analyses within the Tillandsia utriculata L. complex (Bromeliaceae) allow for the recognition of a new species, with notes on its phylogenetic position. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 138: 353-365.
57. Price SA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL., 2005. A complete phylogeny of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla). Biological Reviews 80: 445-473. (Pubitemid 41081467)
58. Purvis A., 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44: 251-255.
59. R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [online]. Available from http://www.r-project.org/ [accessed 20 January 2013].
60. Ragan MA., 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1: 53-58.
61. Ranker TA, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Gilmartin AJ., 1990. Subfamilial phylogenetic relationships of the Bromeliaceae: evidence from cloroplast DNA restriction site variation. Systematic Botany 15: 425-434.
62. Ranwez V, Berry V, Criscuolo A, Henri P, Guillemot S, Scornavacca C, Douzery EJP., 2007. PhySIC: A veto supertree method with desirable properties. Systematic Biology 56: 798-817.
63. Rex M, Schulte K, Zizka G, Peters J, Vásquez R, Ibisch PL, Weising K., 2009. Phylogenetic analysis of Fosterella L.B. Sm. (Pitcairnioideae, Bromeliaceae) based on four chloroplast DNA regions. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 51: 472-485.
64. Rodrigo AG., 1993. A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42: 631-636.
65. Rodrigo AG., 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45: 267-274.
66. Salamin N, Hodkinson TR, Savolainen V., 2002. Building supertree: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Systematic Biology 51: 136-150. (Pubitemid 35169411)
67. Sanderson MJ, Purvis A, Henze C., 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 105-109. (Pubitemid 28136253)
68. Sass C, Specht CD., 2010. Phylogenetic estimation of the core Bromelioids with an emphasis on the genus Aechmea (Bromeliaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55: 559-571.
69. Schliep KP., 2011. Phangorn: Phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics 27: 592-593.
70. Schulte K, Barfuss MHJ, Zizka G., 2009. Phylogeny of Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae) inferred from nuclear and plastid DNA loci reveals the evolution of the tank habit within the subfamily. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 51: 327-339.
71. Schulte K, Horres R, Zizka G., 2005. Molecular phylogeny of Bromelioideae and its implications on biogeography and the evolution of CAM in the family (Poales, Bromeliaceae). Senckenbergiana Biology 85: 113-125.
72. Schulte K, Zizka G., 2008. Multi locus plastid phylogeny of Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae) and the taxonomic utility of petal appendages and pollen characters. Candollea 63: 209-255.
73. Scornavaca C, Berry V, Lefort V, Douzery EJP, Ranwez V., 2008. PhySIC-IST: Cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees. BMC Bioinformatics 9: 413.
74. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M., 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 1114-1116. (Pubitemid 29368141)
75. Silva JG, Costa V, Oliveira R, Costa A., 2012. A morphological cladistic analysis of the Vriesea corcovadensis group (Bromeliaceae: Tillandsioideae), with anatomical descriptions: New evidence of the non-monophyly of the genus. Systematic Botany 37: 641-654.
76. Smith LB, Downs RJ., 1974. Pitcairnioideae (Bromeliaceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 14: 1-662.
77. Smith LB, Downs RJ., 1977. Tillandsioideae (Bromeliaceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 14: 663-1492.
78. Smith LB, Downs RJ., 1979. Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 14: 1493-2142.
79. Smith LB, Till W., 1998. Bromeliaceae. In:, Kubitzki K, ed. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. IV. Alismatanae and Commelinanae (except Gramineae). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 74-99.
80. Sousa LOF, Wendt T, Brown GK, Tuthill DE, Evans TM., 2007. Monophyly and phylogenetic relationships in Lymania (Bromeliaceae: Bromelioideae) based on morphology and chloroplast DNA sequences. Systematic Botany 32: 264-270. (Pubitemid 47052469)
81. Stamatakis A., 2006. RaxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688-2690. (Pubitemid 44642609)
82. Steel M, Dress AW, Böcker S., 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Systematic Biology 49: 363-368.
83. Sukumaran J, Holder MT., 2010. Dendropy: A Python library for phylogenetic computing. Bioinformatics 26: 1569-1571.
84. Swenson M, Barbançon F, Warnow T, Randal C., 2010. A simulation study comparing supertree and combined analysis methods using SMIDGen. Algorithms for Molecular Biology 5: 8.
85. Swenson M, Suri R, Linder C, Warnow T., 2012. SuperFine: Fast and accurate supertree estimation. Systematic Biology 61: 214-227.
86. Swofford DL., 2002. PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (* and other methods). Version 4. Sunderland: Sinauer.
87. Terry RG, Brown GK, Olmstead RG., 1997. Examination of subfamilial phylogeny in Bromeliaceae using comparative sequencing of the plastid locus ndhF. American Journal of Botany 84: 664-670. (Pubitemid 27340841)
88. Versieux LM, Barbará T, Gracas LM, Calvente A, Michael F, Lexer C., 2012. Molecular phylogenetics of the Brazilian giant bromeliads (Alcantarea, Bromeliaceae): implications for morphological evolution and biogeography. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 64: 177-189.
89. Wilkinson M, Cotton JA, Creevey C, Eulenstein O, Harris SR, Lapointe FJ, Levasseur C, Mcinerney JO, Pisani D, Thorley J., 2005. The shape of supertrees to come: Tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Systematic Biology 54: 419-431. (Pubitemid 41040441)
90. Wilkinson M, Cotton JA, Lapointe FJ, Pisani D., 2007. Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting. Systematic Biology 56: 330-337.
91. Wilkinson M, Thorley JL, Pisani D, Lapointe FJ, McInerney JO., 2004. Some desiderata for liberal supertree. In:, Bininda-Emonds ORP, ed. Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 227-246.
92. Zwickl D., 2006. Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion. Ph.D. Dissertation. Austin: The University of Texas.