Post-molecular systematics and the future of phylogenetics

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 30, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 384-389

  Pyron, R Alexander ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative methods; Fossils; Genomes; Phylogenies; Systematics; Total evidence

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA SET; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FOSSIL; GENE EXPRESSION; GENOME; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; MORPHOLOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; POPULATION GENETICS; RESEARCH PROGRAM; TAXONOMY;

FOSSIL; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; POPULATION GENETICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TRENDS;

FOSSILS; GENETICS, POPULATION; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84937517688     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.04.016     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Hillis D.M., et al. Molecular Systematics 1996, Sinauer Associates.
2. Zanne A.E., et al. Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature 2014, 506:89-92.
3. Betancur-R R., et al. The tree of life and a new classification of bony fishes. PLoS Curr. 2013, Published online April 18, 2013. 10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288.
4. Burleigh J.G., et al. Building the avian tree of life using a large-scale, sparse supermatrix. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 84C:53-63.
5. Pyron R.A., Wiens J.J. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2011, 61:543-583.
6. Pyron R.A., et al. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13:93.
7. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P., et al. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 2007, 446:507-512.
8. Lemmon E.M., Lemmon A.R. High-throughput genomic data in systematics and phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2013, 44:99-121.
9. Ho L.S.T., Ane C. Intrinsic inference difficulties for trait evolution with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5:1133-1146.
10. Pennell M.W., et al. Model adequacy and the macroevolution of angiosperm functional traits. Am. Nat. 2014, Published online April 7, 2014. 10.1086/682022.
11. Rabosky D.L., Goldberg E.E. Model inadequacy and mistaken inferences of trait-dependent speciation. Syst. Biol. 2015, 64:340-355.
12. Maddison W.P., FitzJohn R.G. The unsolved challenge to phylogenetic correlation tests for categorical characters. Syst. Biol. 2014, 64:127-136.
13. Edwards S.V. Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?. Evolution 2009, 63:1-19.
14. Sharma P.P., et al. Phylogenomic interrogation of Arachnida reveals systemic conflicts in phylogenetic signal. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2014, 31:2963-2984.
15. Pyron R.A., et al. Effectiveness of phylogenomic data and coalescent species-tree methods for resolving difficult nodes in the phylogeny of advanced snakes (Serpentes: Caenophidia). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 81:221-231.
16. Jeffroy O., et al. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:225-231.
17. Aguinaldo A.M.A., et al. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 1997, 387:489-493.
18. Hedges S.B. Amniote phylogeny and the position of turtles. BMC Biol. 2012, 10:64.
19. Sibley C.G., Ahlquist J.E. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution 1990, Yale University Press.
20. Townsend T.M., et al. Molecular phylogenetics of Squamata: the position of snakes, amphisbaenians, and dibamids, and the root of the squamate tree. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:735-757.
21. Frost D.R., et al. The amphibian tree of life. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 2006, 297:8-370.
22. Crawford N.G., et al. More than 1000 ultraconserved elements provide evidence that turtles are the sister group of archosaurs. Biol. Lett. 2012, 8:783-786.
23. Wiens J.J., et al. Resolving the phylogeny of lizards and snakes (Squamata) with extensive sampling of genes and species. Biol. Lett. 2012, 8:1043-1046.
24. McCormack J.E., et al. Maximum likelihood estimates of species trees: how accuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:501-508.
25. Zhang G.J., et al. A flock of genomes. Science 2014, 346:1308-1309.
26. Meusemann K., et al. A phylogenomic approach to resolve the arthropod tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010, 27:2451-2464.
27. Dunn C.W., et al. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 2008, 452:745-749.
28. Peloso P.L.V., et al. The impact of anchored phylogenomics and taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference in narrow-mouthed frogs (Anura, Microhylidae). Cladistics 2015, Published online March 19, 2015. 10.1111/cla.12118.
29. Misof B., et al. Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 2014, 346:763-767.
30. Smith S.A., et al. Resolving the evolutionary relationships of molluscs with phylogenomic tools. Nature 2011, 480:364-367.
31. Rokas A., et al. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 2003, 425:798-804.
32. Delsuc F., et al. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2005, 6:361-375.
33. Rokas A., Carroll S.B. Bushes in the tree of life. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:1899-1904.
34. Luo H.W., et al. Phylogenetic analysis of genome rearrangements among five mammalian orders. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 65:871-882.
35. Townsend T.M., et al. 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.
36. 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.
37. Brandley M.C., et al. Evaluating the performance of anchored hybrid enrichment at the tips of the tree of life: a phylogenetic analysis of Australian Eugongylus group scincid lizards. BMC Evol. Biol. 2015, 15:62.
38. Wagner C.E., et al. Genome-wide RAD sequence data provide unprecedented resolution of species boundaries and relationships in the Lake Victoria cichlid adaptive radiation. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22:787-798.
39. O'Neill E.M., et al. Parallel tagged amplicon sequencing reveals major lineages and phylogenetic structure in the North American tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) species complex. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22:111-129.
40. Locke D.P., et al. Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes. Nature 2011, 469:529-533.
41. Gutenkunst R.N., et al. Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations from multidimensional SNP frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5:e1000695.
42. Lukic S., Hey J. Demographic inference using spectral methods on SNP data, with an analysis of the human out-of-Africa expansion. Genetics 2012, 192:619-639.
43. Wang Y., Hey J. Estimating divergence parameters with small samples from a large number of loci. Genetics 2010, 184:363-379.
44. Cutter A.D. Integrating phylogenetics, phylogeography and population genetics through genomes and evolutionary theory. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2013, 69:1172-1185.
45. Leache A.D., et al. Species delimitation using genome-wide SNP data. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:534-542.
46. Sousa V., Hey J. Understanding the origin of species with genome-scale data: modelling gene flow. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2013, 14:404-414.
47. Castoe T.A., et al. The Burmese python genome reveals the molecular basis for extreme adaptation in snakes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:3194.
48. Castoe T.A., et al. Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:8986-8991.
49. Parker J., et al. Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals. Nature 2013, 502:228-231.
50. Foote A.D., et al. Convergent evolution of the genomes of marine mammals. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47:272-275.
51. Pantalacci S., Semon M. Transcriptomics of developing embryos and organs: a raising tool for evo-devo. J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol. 2014, Published online November 11, 2014. 10.1002/.22595.
52. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 1985, 125:1-15.
53. Felsenstein J. A comparative method for both discrete and continuous characters using the threshold model. Am. Nat. 2012, 179:145-156.
54. Pyron R.A., Burbrink F.T. Phylogenetic estimates of speciation and extinction rates for testing ecological and evolutionary hypotheses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28:729-736.
55. Ricklefs R.E. Estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic information. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:601-610.
56. Harmon L.J., Glor R.E. Poor statistical performance of the Mantel test in phylogenetic comparative analyses. Evolution 2010, 64:2173-2178.
57. Rabosky D.L. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e89543.
58. Beaulieu J.M., O'Meara B.C. Extinction can be estimated from moderately sized molecular phylogenies. Evolution 2015, 69:1036-1043.
59. Janzen T., et al. Approximate Bayesian Computation of diversification rates from molecular phylogenies: introducing a new efficient summary statistic, the nLTT. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015, Published online March 11, 2015. 10.1111/2041-210X.12350.
60. May M.R., Moore B.R. How well can we detect shifts in rates of lineage diversification?. A simulation study of sequential AIC methods. Biorxiv 2014, Published online November 15, 2014. 10.1101/011452.
61. Pennell M.W. Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology: concepts and practice. Syst. Biol. 2015, 64:161-163.
62. Cunningham C.W., et al. Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:361-366.
63. Harmon L.J., et al. Early bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data. Evolution 2010, 64:2385-2396.
64. Revell L.J. Ancestral character estimation under the threshold model from quantitative genetics. Evolution 2014, 68:743-759.
65. Ruane S., et al. Coalescent species delimitation in milksnakes (genus Lampropeltis) and impacts on phylogenetic comparative analyses. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:231-250.
66. Burbrink F.T., Pyron R.A. The impact of gene-tree/species-tree discordance on diversification-rate estimation. Evolution 2011, 65:1851-1861.
67. Wertheim J.O., Sanderson M.J. Estimating diversification rates: how useful are divergence times?. Evolution 2011, 65:309-320.
68. Donoghue M.J., et al. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1989, 20:431-460.
69. Scotland R.W., et al. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:539-548.
70. Pyron R.A. Divergence time estimation using fossils as terminal taxa and the origins of Lissamphibia. Syst. Biol. 2011, 60:466-481.
71. Ronquist F., et al. A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to the early radiation of the Hymenoptera. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:973-999.
72. Wiens J.J., et al. Combining phylogenomics and fossils in higher-level squamate reptile phylogeny: molecular data change the placement of fossil taxa. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:674-688.
73. Wright A.M., Hillis D.M. Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e109210.
74. Bapst D.W. When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology?. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e62312.
75. Slater G.J., Harmon L.J. Unifying fossils and phylogenies for comparative analyses of diversification and trait evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4:699-702.
76. Mitchell K.J., et al. Ancient DNA reveals elephant birds and kiwi are sister taxa and clarifies ratite bird evolution. Science 2014, 344:898-900.
77. Paradis E. Can extinction rates be estimated without fossils?. J. Theor. Biol. 2004, 229:19-30.
78. Betancur-R R., et al. Fossil-based comparative analyses reveal ancient marine ancestry erased by extinction in ray-finned fishes. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18:441-450.
79. Jenner R.A. Boolean logic and character state identity: pitfalls of character coding in metazoan cladistics. Contrib. Zool. 2002, 71:67-91.
80. Sansom R.S., et al. Non-random decay of chordate characters causes bias in fossil interpretation. Nature 2010, 463:797-800.
81. Davalos L.M., et al. Integrating incomplete fossils by isolating conflicting signal in saturated and non-independent morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 2014, 63:582-600.
82. Reeder T.W., et al. Integrated analyses resolve conflicts over squamate reptile phylogeny and reveal unexpected placements for fossil taxa. PLoS ONE 2015, 10:e0118199.
83. Pogue M.G., Mickevich M.F. Character definitions and character state delineation: the bête noire of phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 1990, 6:319-361.
84. Lewis P.O. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 2001, 50:913-925.
85. Giribet G. Morphology should not be forgotten in the era of genomics - a phylogenetic perspective. Zool. Anz. 2015, Published online January 30, 2015. 10.1016/j.jcz.2015.01.003.