Overly simplistic substitution models obscure green plant phylogeny

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 576-582

  Cooper, Endymion D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

VIRIDIPLANTAE;

PLANT DNA;

BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; PLANT;

BASE COMPOSITION; DNA, PLANT; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; PLANTS;

EID: 84906945195     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.06.006     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Moczydłowska M., et al. Proterozoic phytoplankton and timing of Chlorophyte algae origins. Palaeontology 2011, 54:721-733.
2. Price D.C., et al. Cyanophora paradoxa genome elucidates origin of photosynthesis in algae and plants. Science 2012, 335:843-847.
3. Howe C.J., et al. The origin of plastids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2008, 363:2675-2685.
4. Stiller J.W. Plastid endosymbiosis, genome evolution and the origin of green plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12:391-397.
5. Li B., et al. Compositional biases among synonymous substitutions cause conflict between gene and protein trees for plastid origins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 10.1093/molbev/msu105.
6. Lemieux C., et al. A clade uniting the green algae Mesostigma viride and Chlorokybus atmophyticus represents the deepest branch of the Streptophyta in chloroplast genome-based phylogenies. BMC Biol. 2007, 10.1186/1741-7007-5-2.
7. Lemieux C., et al. Ancestral chloroplast genome in Mesostigma viride reveals an early branch of green plant evolution. Nature 2000, 403:649-652.
8. Turmel M., et al. The complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of Mesostigma viride identifies this green alga as the earliest green plant divergence and predicts a highly compact mitochondrial genome in the ancestor of all green plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2002, 19:24-38.
9. Leliaert F., et al. Phylogeny and molecular evolution of the green algae. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2012, 31:1-46.
10. Karol K.G., et al. The closest living relatives of land plants. Science 2001, 294:2351-2353.
11. Timme R.E., et al. Broad phylogenetic sampling and the sister lineage of land plants. PLoS ONE 2012, 10.1371/journal.pone.0029696.
12. Wodniok S., et al. Origin of land plants: do conjugating green algae hold the key?. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 10.1186/1471-2148-11-104.
13. McCourt R.M., et al. Charophyte algae and land plant origins. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:661-666.
14. Karol K.G., et al. Complete plastome sequences of Equisetum arvense and Isoetes flaccida: implication for phylogeny and plastid genome evolution of early land plant lineages. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10.1186/1471-2148-10-321.
15. Zhong B., et al. Origin of land plants using the multispecies coalescent model. Trends Plant Sci. 2013, 18:492-495.
16. Zhong B., et al. Streptophyte algae and the origin of land plants revisited using heterogeneous models with three new algal chloroplast genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31:177-183.
17. Ruhfel B.R., et al. From algae to angiosperms: inferring the phylogeny of green plants (Viridiplantae) from 360 plastid genomes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2014, 10.1186/1471-2148-14-23.
18. Turmel M., et al. Tracing the evolution of streptophyte algae and their mitochondrial genome. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5:1817-1835.
19. Qiu Y-L., et al. A nonflowering land plant phylogeny inferred from nucleotide sequences of seven chloroplast, mitochondrial, and nuclear genes. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2007, 168:691-708.
20. Qiu Y-L., et al. The deepest divergences in land plants inferred from phylogenomic evidence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103:15511-15516.
21. Shanker A., et al. Phylogenomic evidence of bryophytes' monophyly using complete and incomplete data sets from chloroplast proteomes. J. Plant Biotechnol. 2011, 20:288-292.
22. Nishiyama T., et al. Chloroplast phylogeny indicates that bryophytes are monophyletic. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1813-1819.
23. Chang Y., Graham S.W. Inferring the higher-order phylogeny of mosses (Bryophyta) and relatives using a large, multigene plastid data set. Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98:839-849.
24. Goremykin V.V., et al. The evolutionary root of flowering plants. Syst. Biol. 2013, 62:50-61.
25. Wu C-S., et al. Chloroplast phylogenomics indicates that Ginkgo biloba is sister to cycads. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5:243-254.
26. Rai H.S., Graham S.W. Utility of a large, multigene plastid data set in inferring higher-order relationships in ferns and relatives (monilophytes). Am. J. Bot. 2010, 97:1444-1456.
27. Pryer K.M., et al. Horsetails and ferns are a monophyletic group and the closest living relatives to seed plants. Nature 2001, 409:618-622.
28. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 1978, 27:401-410.
29. Bergsten J. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 2005, 21:163-193.
30. Cox C.J., et al. Conflicting phylogenies for early land plants are caused by composition biases among synonymous substitutions. Syst. Biol. 2014, 10.1093/sysbio/syt109.
31. Goremykin V.V., Hellwig F.H. Evidence for the most basal split in land plants dividing bryophyte and tracheophyte lineages. Plant Syst. Evol. 2005, 254:93-103.
32. Huelsenbeck J.P., et al. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 2001, 294:2310-2314.
33. Posada D. jModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:1253-1256.
34. Matsuzaki M., et al. Genome sequence of the ultrasmall unicellular red alga Cyanidioschyzon merolae 10D. Nature 2004, 428:653-657.
35. Chen W., et al. Evolution of complete proteomes: guanine-cytosine pressure, phylogeny and environmental influences blend the proteomic architecture. BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 10.1186/1471-2148-13-219.
36. Jobson R.W., Qiu Y.L. Amino acid compositional shifts during streptophyte transitions to terrestrial habitats. J. Mol. Evol. 2011, 72:204-214.
37. Ho S.Y.W., Jermiin L.S. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:623-637.
38. Jermiin L.S., et al. The biasing effect of compositional heterogeneity on phylogenetic estimates may be underestimated. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:638-643.
39. Lockhart P.J., et al. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1994, 11:605-612.
40. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 1981, 17:368-376.
41. Jeffroy O., et al. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:225-231.
42. Philippe H., et al. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 2011, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602.
43. Kumar S., et al. Statistics and truth in phylogenomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29:457-472.
44. Laurin-Lemay S., et al. Origin of land plants revisited in the light of sequence contamination and missing data. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22:R593-R594.
45. Struck T.H. The impact of paralogy on phylogenetic studies: a case study on annelid relationships. PLoS ONE 2013, 10.1371/journal.pone.0062892.
46. Struck T.H. TreSpEx: detection of misleading signal in phylogenetic reconstructions based on tree information. Evol. Bioinform.Online 2014, 10:51-67.
47. Boussau B., et al. Genome-scale coestimation of species and gene trees. Genome Res. 2013, 23:323-330.
48. Salichos L., Rokas A. Inferring ancient divergence requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 2013, 497:327-331.
49. Salichos L., et al. Novel information theory-based measures for quantifying incongruence among phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31:1261-1271.
50. Goremykin V.V., et al. Automated removal of noisy data in phylogenomic analyses. J. Mol. Evol. 2010, 71:319-331.
51. Breinholt J.W., Kawahara A.Y. Phylotranscriptomics: saturated third codon positions radically influence the estimation of trees based on next-gen data. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5:2082-2092.
52. Phillips M.J., Penny D. The root of the mammalian tree inferred from whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 28:171-181.
53. Ishikawa S.A., et al. RY-coding and non-homogeneous models can ameliorate the maximum-likelihood inferences from nucleotide sequence data with parallel compositional heterogeneity. Evol. Bioinform. Online 2012, 8:357-371.
54. Vera-Ruiz V.A., et al. Statistical tests to identify appropriate types of nucleotide sequence recoding in molecular phylogenetics. BMC Bioinformatics 2014, 10.1186/1471-2105-15-S2-S8.
55. Lartillot N., Philippe H. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:1095-1109.
56. Le S.Q., et al. Modeling protein evolution with several amino acid replacement matrices depending on site rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29:2921-2936.
57. Shapiro B., et al. Choosing appropriate substitution models for the phylogenetic analysis of protein-coding sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:7-9.
58. Gil M., et al. CodonPhyML: fast maximum likelihood phylogeny estimation under codon substitution models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30:1270-1280.
59. Ho J.W.K., et al. SeqVis: visualization of compositional heterogeneity in large alignments of nucleotides. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2121-2163.
60. Ababneh F., et al. Matched-pairs tests of homogeneity with applications to homologous nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:1225-1231.
61. Blanquart S., Lartillot N. A Bayesian compound stochastic process for modeling nonstationary and nonhomogeneous sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:2058-2071.
62. Boussau B., Gouy M. Efficient likelihood computations with nonreversible models of evolution. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:756-768.
63. Foster P.G. Modeling compositional heterogeneity. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:485-495.
64. Blanquart S., Lartillot N. A site- and time-heterogeneous model of amino acid replacement. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:842-858.
65. Groussin M., et al. A branch-heterogeneous model of protein evolution for efficient inference of ancestral sequences. Syst. Biol. 2013, 62:523-538.
66. Dutheil J.Y., et al. Efficient selection of branch-specific models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29:1861-1874.
67. Jayaswal V., et al. Mixture models of nucleotide sequence evolution that account for heterogeneity in the substitution process across sites and across lineages. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:726-742.
68. Moustafa A., et al. Genomic footprints of a cryptic plastid endosymbiosis in diatoms. Science 2009, 324:1724-1726.
69. Deschamps P., Moreira D. Reevaluating the green contribution to diatom genomes. Genome Biol. Evol. 2012, 4:795-800.
70. Lanave C., et al. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Evol. 1984, 20:86-93.
71. Sumner J.G., et al. Is the general time-reversible model bad for molecular phylogenetics?. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:1069-1074.
72. Nenandic O., Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. J. Stat. Software 2007, 20:1-13.