Coalescence vs. concatenation: Sophisticated analyses vs. first principles applied to rooting the angiosperms

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 91, Issue , 2015, Pages 98-122

  Simmons, Mark P ^a   Gatesy, John ^b  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Amborella; ASTRAL; Biased character sampling; Gene tree; Long branch attraction; Shortcut coalescent methods

Indexed keywords

AMBORELLA; AMBORELLALES; MAGNOLIOPHYTA; NYMPHAEALES;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTIFACT; CLASSIFICATION; GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; PLANT GENE; PROCEDURES; SELECTION BIAS;

ANGIOSPERMS; ARTIFACTS; CLASSIFICATION; GENES, PLANT; PHYLOGENY; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84930960341     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.05.011     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. Abascal F., Zardoya R., Posada D. ProtTest: selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:2104-2105.
2. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1974, 19:716-723.
3. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2003, 141:399-436.
4. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APGIII. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 161:105-121.
5. Anisimova M., Gascuel O. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:539-552.
6. Bacon C.D., McKenna M.J., Simmons M.P., Wagner W.L. Evaluating multiple criteria for species delimitation: an empirical example using Hawaiian palms (Arecaceae: Pritchardia). BMC Evol. Biol. 2012, 12:23.
7. Barkman T.J., Chenery G., McNeal J.R., Lyons-Weiler J., Elisens W.J., Moore G., Wolfe A.D., dePamphilis C.W. Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2000, 97:13166-13171.
8. Bayzid M.S., Warnow T. Naive binning improves phylogenomic analyses. Bioinformatics 2013, 29:2277-2284.
9. Bell C.D., Soltis D.E., Soltis P.S. The age and diversification of the angiosperms re-revisited. Am. J. Bot. 2010, 97:1296-1303.
10. Betancur-R R., Li C., Munroe T.A., Ballesteros J.A., Orti G. Addressing gene tree discordance and non-stationarity to resolve a multi-locus phylogeny of the flatfishes (Teleostei: Pleuronectiformes). Syst. Biol. 2013, 62:763-785.
11. Capella-Gutierrez S., Silla-Martinez J.M., Gabaldon T. TrimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:1972-1973.
12. Carstens B.C., Knowles L.L. Estimating species phylogeny from gene-tree probabilities despite incomplete lineage sorting: an example from Melanoplus grasshoppers. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:400-411.
13. Chase M.W., Soltis D.E., Olmstead R.G., Morgan D., Les D.H., Mishler B.D., Duvall M.R., Price R.A., Hills H.G., Qiu Y.-L., Kron K.A., Rettig J.H., Conti E., Palmer J.D., Manhart J.R., Sytsma K.J., Michaels H.J., Kress W.J., Karol K.G., Clark W.D., Hedrén M., Gaut B.S., Jansen R.J., Kim K.-J., Wimpee C.F., Smith J.F., Furnier G.R., Strauss S.H., Xiang Q.-Y., Plunkett G.M., Soltis P.S., Swensen S.M., Williams S.E., Gadek P.A., Quinn C.J., Eguiarte L.E., Golenberg E., Learn G.H., Graham S.W., Barrett S.C.H., Dayanandan S., Albert V.A. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1993, 80:528-580.
14. Chiari Y., Cahais V., Galtier N., Delsuc F. Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria). BMC Biol. 2012, 10:65.
15. Cummins C.A., McInerney J.O. A method for inferring the rate of evolution of homologous characters that can potentially improve phylogenetic inference, resolve deep divergence and correct systematic biases. Syst. Biol. 2011, 60:833-844.
16. Davis J.I., Simmons M.P., Stevenson D.W., Wendel J.F. Data decisiveness, data quality, and incongruence in phylogenetic analysis: an example from the monocotyledons using mitochondrial atpA sequences. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:282-310.
17. Degnan J.H., Rosenberg N.A. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2:e68.
18. Donoghue M.J., Doyle J.A. Phylogenetic analysis of angiosperms and the relationships of Hamamelidae. Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae 1989, vol. 1:17-45. Oxford, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
19. Doyle J.J. The irrelevance of allele tree topologies for species delimitation, and a non-topological alternative. Syst. Bot. 1995, 20:574-588.
20. Drew B.T., Ruhfel B.R., Smith S.A., Moore M.J., Briggs B.G., Gitzendanner M.A., Soltis P.S., Soltis D.E. Another look at the root of the angiosperms reveals a familiar tale. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:368-382.
21. Edgar R.C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 22:1792-1797.
22. Edwards S.V., Arctander P., Wilson A.C. Mitochondrial resolution of a deep branch in the genealogical tree for perching birds. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. - B 1991, 243:99-107.
23. Farris J.S. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 1989, 5:417-419.
24. Farris J.S., Albert V.A., Källersjö M., Lipscomb D., Kluge A.G. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 1996, 12:99-124.
25. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 1978, 27:401-410.
26. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985, 39:783-791.
27. Gatesy J., Baker R.H. Hidden likelihood support in genomic data: can forty-five wrongs make a right?. Syst. Biol. 2005, 54:483-492.
28. Gatesy J., Springer M.S. Phylogenetic analysis at deep timescales: unreliable gene trees, bypassed hidden support, and the coalescence/concatalescence conundrum. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 80:231-266.
29. Gatesy J., O'Grady P., Baker R.H. Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 1999, 15:271-313.
30. Gatesy J., Matthee C., DeSalle R., Hayashi C. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:652-664.
31. Gatesy J., Baker R.H., Hayashi C. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:342-355.
32. Gatesy J., DeSalle R., Wahlberg N. How many genes should a systematist sample? Conflicting insights from a phylogenomic matrix characterized by replicated incongruence. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:355-363.
33. Goloboff P.A. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 1999, 15:415-428.
34. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S. Methods for quick consensus estimation. Cladistics 2001, 17:S26-S34.
35. Goloboff P.A., Pol D. Parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetics. Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics 2005, 148-159. Oxford University Press, Oxford. V.A. Albert (Ed.).
36. Goloboff P.A., Simmons M.P. Bias in tree searches, and its consequences for measuring group supports. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:851-861.
37. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S., Källersjö M., Oxelman B., Ramírez M.J., Szumik C.A. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 2003, 19:324-332.
38. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S., Nixon K.C. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 2008, 24:774-786.
39. Goremykin V.V., Hirsch-Ernst K.I., Wolfl S., Hellwig F.H. Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome sequence suggests that Amborella is not a basal angiosperm. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2003, 20:1499-1505.
40. Goremykin V.V., Nikiforova S.V., Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. Automated removal of noisy data in phylogenomic analyses. J. Mol. Evol. 2010, 71:319-331.
41. Goremykin V.V., Nikiforova S.V., Biggs P.J., Zhong B., Delange P., Martin W., Woetzel S., Atherton R.A., McLenachan P.A., Lockhart P.J. The evolutionary root of flowering plants. Syst. Biol. 2013, 62:50-61.
42. Graybeal A. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem?. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:9-17.
43. Guindon S., Dufayard J.-F., Lefort V., Anisimova M., Hordijk W., Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:307-321.
44. Harrington R.C., Near T.J. Phylogenetic and coalescent strategies of species delimitation in snubnose darters (Percidae: Etheostoma). Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:63-79.
45. Hedges S.B. The number of replications needed for accurate estimation of the bootstrap p value in phylogenetic studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1992, 9:366-369.
46. Hill J., Davis K.E. The Supertree Toolkit 2: a new and improved software package with a graphical user interface for supertree construction. Biodivers. Data J. 2014, 2:e1053.
47. Hillis D.M. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 1996, 383:130-131.
48. Hillis D.M. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:3-8.
49. Hobolth A., Dutheil J.Y., Hawks J., Schierup M.H., Mailund T. Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee, and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection. Genome Res. 2011, 21:349-356.
50. Holland B.R., Penny D., Hendy M.D. Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock - a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:229-238.
51. Hudson R.R. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 1990, 7:1-44.
52. Jiao Y., Wickett N.J., Ayyampalayam S., Chanderbali A.S., Landherr L., Ralph R.E., Tomsho L.P., Hu Y., Liang H., Soltis P.S., Soltis D.E., Clifton S.W., Schlarbaum S.E., Schuster S.C., Ma H., Leebens-Mack J., dePamphilis C.W. Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 2011, 473:97-100.
53. Källersjö M., Albert V.A., Farris J.S. Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics 1999, 15:91-93.
54. Kim J. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 1996, 45:363-374.
55. Kluge A.G. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis for relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 1989, 38:7-25.
56. Kluge A.G., Farris J.S. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 1969, 18:1-32.
57. Kubatko L.S., Degnan J.H. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:17-24.
58. Lanier H.C., Knowles L.L. Applying species-tree analyses to deep phylogenetic histories: challenges and potential suggested from a survey of empirical phylogenetic studies. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2015, 83:191-199.
59. Leebens-Mack J., Raubeson L.A., Cui L., Kuehl J.V., Fourcase M.H., Chumley T.W., Boore J.L., Jansen R.K., dePamphilis C.W. Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein Zone. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:1948-1963.
60. Liu L., Yu L., Pearl D.K., Edwards S.V. Estimating species phylogenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:468-477.
61. Liu L., Yu L., Edwards S.V. A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10:302.
62. Loconte H., Stevenson D.W. Cladistics of the Magnoliidae. Cladistics 1991, 7:267-296.
63. Maddison D.R. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 1991, 40:315-328.
64. Maddison W.P. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 1997, 46:523-536.
65. Maddison W.P., Maddison D.R. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution 1992, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
66. Magallón S., Hilu K.W., Quandt D. Land plant evolutionary timeline: gene effects are secondary to fossil constraints in relaxed clock estimation of age and substitution rates. Am. J. Bot. 2013, 100:556-573.
67. Mathews S., Donoghue M.J. The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 1999, 286:947-950.
68. McCormack J.E., Faircloth B.C., Crawford N.G., Gowaty P.A., Brumfield R.T., Glenn T.C. Ultraconserved elements are novel phylogenomic markers that resolve placental mammal phylogeny when combined with species-tree analysis. Genome Res. 2012, 22:746-754.
69. Meyer A. Shortcomings of the cytochrome b gene as a molecular marker. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1994, 9:278-280.
70. Mirarab S., Reaz R., Bayzid M.S., Zimmermann T., Swenson M.S., Warnow T. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics 2014, 30:i541-i548.
71. Morrison D.A. Increasing the efficiency of searches for the maximum likelihood tree in a phylogenetic analysis of up to 150 nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:988-1010.
72. Morrison D.A., Ellis J.T. Effects of nucleotide sequence alignment on phylogeny estimation: a case study of 18S rDNAs of Apicomplexa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1997, 14:428-441.
73. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 1996, 12:221-242.
74. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M. On consensus, collapsibility, and clade concordance. Cladistics 1996, 12:305-321.
75. Nixon K.C., Crepet W.L., Stevenson D., Friis E.M. A reevaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1994, 81:484-533.
76. Patel S., Kimball R.T., Braun E.L. Error in phylogenetic estimation for bushes in the tree of life. Phylogenet. Evol. Biol. 2013, 1:110.
77. Philippe H., Brinkmann H., Lavrov D.V., Littlewood T.J., Manuel M., Worheide G., Baurain D. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9:e1000602.
78. Pimentel R.A., Riggins R. The nature of cladistic data. Cladistics 1987, 3:201-209.
79. Pollock D.D., Zwickl D.J., McGuire J.A., Hillis D.M. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:664-671.
80. Posada D. JModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:1253-1256.
81. Qiu Y.-L., Dombrovska O., Lee J., Li L., Whitlock B.A., Bernasconi-Quadroni F., Rest J.S., Davis C.C., Borsch T., Hilu K.W., Renner S.S., Soltis D.E., Soltis P.S., Zanis M.J., Cannone J.J., Gutell R.R., Powell M., Savolainen V., Chatrou L.W., Chase M.W. Phylogenetic analyses of basal angiosperms based on nine plastid, mitochondrial, and nuclear genes. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 166:815-842.
82. Qiu Y.-L., Li L., Wang B., Xue J.-Y., Hendry T.A., Li R.-Q., Brown J.W., Liu Y., Hudson G.T., Chen Z.-D. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from sequences of four mitochondrial genes. J. Syst. Evol. 2010, 48:391-425.
83. Ragan M.A. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1992, 1:53-58.
84. Rosenfeld J.A., Payne A., DeSalle R. Random roots and lineage sorting. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 64:12-20.
85. Ruhfel B.R., Gitzendanner M.A., Soltis P.S., Soltis D.E., Burleigh J.G. From algae to angiosperms-inferring the phylogeny of green plants (Viridiplantae) from 360 plastid genomes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2014, 14:23.
86. Salichos L., Rokas A. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 2013, 497:327-331.
87. Sanderson M.J., Donoghue M.J. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 1989, 43:1781-1795.
88. Sanderson M.J., Purvis A., Henze C. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:105-109.
89. Schuh R.T., Polhemus J.T. Analysis of taxonomic congruence among morphological, ecological, and biogeographic data sets for the Leptopodomorpha (Hemiptera). Syst. Zool. 1980, 29:1-26.
90. Sharkey M.J., Leathers J.W. Majority does not rule: the trouble with majority-rule consensus trees. Cladistics 2001, 17:282-284.
91. Sharma P.P., Kaluziak S.T., Perez-Porro A.R., Gonzalez V.L., Hormiga G., Wheeler W.C., Giribet G. Phylogenomic interrogation of Arachnida reveals systemic conflicts in phylogenetic signal. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31:2963-2984.
92. Shavit L., Penny D., Hendy M.D., Holland B.R. The problem of rooting rapid radiations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24:2400-2411.
93. Shaw T.I., Ruan Z., Glenn T.C., Liu L. STRAW: species tree analysis web server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41:W238-W241.
94. Simmons M.P. Independence of alignment and tree search. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2004, 31:874-879.
95. Simmons M.P., Freudenstein J.V. Artifacts of coding amino acids and other composite characters for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 2002, 18:354-365.
96. Simmons M.P., Freudenstein J.V. Spurious 99% bootstrap and jackknife support for unsupported clades. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2011, 61:177-191.
97. Simmons M.P., Goloboff P.A. An artifact caused by undersampling optimal trees in supermatrix analyses of locally sampled characters. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2013, 69:265-275.
98. Simmons M.P., Goloboff P.A. Dubious resolution and support from published sparse supermatrices: the importance of thorough tree searches. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 78:334-348.
99. Simmons M.P., Norton A.P. Divergent maximum-likelihood-branch-support values for polytomies. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 73:87-96.
100. Simmons M.P., Randle C.P. Disparate parametric branch-support values from ambiguous characters. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 78:66-86.
101. Simmons M.P., Webb C.T. Quantification of the success of phylogenetic inference in simulations. Cladistics 2006, 22:249-255.
102. Simmons M.P., Carr T.G., O'Neill K. Relative character-state space, amount of potential phylogenetic information, and heterogeneity of nucleotide and amino acid characters. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2004, 32:913-926.
103. Simmons M.P., Reeves A., Davis J.I. Character-state space versus rate of evolution for phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 2004, 20:191-204.
104. Simmons M.P., Zhang L.-B., Webb C.T., Reeves A. How can third codon positions outperform first and second codon positions in phylogenetic inference? An empirical example from the seed plants. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:245-258.
105. Smith A.B. Rooting molecular trees: problems and strategies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1994, 51:279-292.
106. Smith S.A., Dunn C.W. Phyutility: a phyloinformatics tool for trees, alignments and molecular data. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:715-716.
107. Sokal R.R., Sneath P.H.A. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy 1963, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
108. Soltis D.E., Soltis P.S., Chase M.W., Mort M.E., Albach D.C., Zanis M., Savolainen V., Hahn W.H., Hoot S.B., Fay M.F., Axtell M., Swensen S.M., Nixon K.C., Farris J.S. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from a combined data set of 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2000, 133:381-461.
109. Soltis D.E., Smith S.A., Cellinese N., Wurdack K.J., Tank D.C., Brockington S.F., Refulio-Rodriguez N.F., Walker J.B., Moore M.J., Carlsward B.S., Bell C.D., Latvis M., Crawley S., Black C., Diouf D., Xi Z., Rushworth C.A., Gitzendanner M.A., Sytsma K.J., Qiu Y.L., Hilu K.W., Davis C.C., Sanderson M.J., Beaman R.S., Olmstead R.G., Judd W.S., Donoghue M.J., Soltis P.S. Angiosperm phylogeny: 17 genes, 640 taxa. Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98:704-730.
110. Springer M.S., Gatesy J. Land plant origins and coalescence confusion. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19:267-269.
111. Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014, 30:1312-1313.
112. Stefanovic S., Rice D.W., Palmer J.D. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots?. BMC Evol. Biol. 2004, 4:35.
113. Stöver B.C., Müller K.F. TreeGraph 2: combining and visualizing evidence from different phylogenetic analyses. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:7.
114. Susko E., Spencer M., Roger A.J. Biases in phylogenetic estimation can be caused by random sequence segments. J. Mol. Evol. 2005, 61:351-359.
115. Suzuki Y., Glazko G.V., Nei M. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99:16138-16143.
116. Swofford D.L. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis using Parsimony (*and Other Methods) 2001, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
117. Townsend T.M., Mulcahy D.G., Noonan B.P., Sites J.W., Kuczynski C.A., Wiens J.J., Reeder T.W. Phylogeny of iguanian lizards inferred from 29 nuclear loci, and a comparison of concatenated and species-tree approaches for an ancient, rapid radiation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2011, 61:363-380.
118. von Heijne G. Signal sequences: the limits of variation. J. Mol. Biol. 1985, 184:99-105.
119. Wheeler W.C. Nucleic acid sequence phylogeny and random outgroups. Cladistics 1990, 6:363-367.
120. Wickett N., Mirarab J.S., Nguyen N., Warnow T., Carpenter E., Matasci N., Ayyampalayam S., Barker M.S., Burleigh J.G., Gitzendanner M.A., Ruhfel B.R., Wafula E., Der J.P., Graham S.W., Mathews S., Melkonian M., Soltis D.E., et al. Phylotranscriptomic analysis of the origin and early diversification of land plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:E4859-E4868.
121. Wong K.M., Suchard M.A., Huelsenbeck J.P. Alignment uncertainty and genomic analysis. Science 2008, 319:473-476.
122. Xi Z., Rest J.S., Davis C.C. Phylogenomics and coalescent analyses resolve extant seed plant relationships. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e80870.
123. Xi Z., Liu L., Rest J.S., Davis C.C. Coalescent versus concatenation methods and the placement of Amborella as sister to water lilies. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:919-932.
124. Yang Z. Computational Molecular Evolution 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
125. Zhong B., Liu L., Yan Z., Penny D. Origin of land plants using the multispecies coalescent model. Trends Plant Sci. 2013, 18:492-495.
126. Zhong B., Liu L., Penny D. The multispecies coalescent model and land plant origins: a reply to Springer and Gatesy. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19:270-272.
127. Zurawski G., Clegg M.T. RbcL sequence data and phylogenetic reconstruction in seed plants: forward. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1993, 80:523-525.