Estimating phylogenetic trees from genome-scale data

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1360, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 36-53

  Liu, Liang ^a   Xi, Zhenxiang ^b   Wu, Shaoyuan ^c   Davis, Charles C ^b   Edwards, Scott V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TIANJIN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Anomaly zone; Bias variance dilemma; Isochore; Recombination; Transcriptome

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA; MESSENGER RNA PRECURSOR; TRANSCRIPTOME;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; DNA SEQUENCE; EXTANT SPECIES; GENETIC DRIFT; GNETOPHYTA; GYMNOSPERM; HEREDITY; LONG BRANCH ATTRACTION; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYLOGENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; PLANT GENOME; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETICS; GENOME; HUMAN; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; DATABASES, GENETIC; GENETIC SPECIATION; GENOME; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; TRANSCRIPTOME;

EID: 84949317694     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12747     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Rannala, B. & Z. Yang . 2008. Phylogenetic inference using whole genomes. Ann. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 9: 217-231.
2. Lemmon, E.M. & A.R. Lemmon . 2013. High-throughput genomic data in systematics and phylogenetics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44: 99-121.
3. Lachance, J. & S.A. Tishkoff . 2013. Population genomics of human adaptation. Ann. Rev. Ecol., Evol. Syst. 44: 123-143.
4. Leaché, A.D. et al. 2014. Species delimitation using genome-wide SNP data. Syst. Biol. 63: 534-542.
5. Hey, J. & R. Nielsen . 2007. Integration within the Felsenstein equation for improved Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in population genetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104: 2785-2790.
6. Machado, C.A. et al. 2002. Inferring the history of speciation from multilocus DNA sequence data: the case of Drosophila pseudoobscura and close relatives. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 472-488.
7. Wakeley, J. & J. Hey . 1997. Estimating ancestral population parameters. Genetics 145: 847-855.
8. Mailund, T. et al. 2012. A new isolation with migration model along complete genomes infers very different divergence processes among closely related great ape species. PLoS Genet. 8: e1003125.
9. Liu, K.J. et al. 2014. An HMM-based comparative genomic framework for detecting introgression in eukaryotes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10: e1003649.
10. Edwards, S.V. 2009. Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63: 1-19.
11. Szöllosi, G.J. et al. 2015. The inference of gene trees with species trees. Syst. Biol. 64: e42-e62.
12. Betancur-R, R. et al. 2013. Addressing gene tree discordance and non-stationarity to resolve a multi-locus phylogeny of the flatfishes (Teleostei: Pleuronectiformes). Syst. Biol. 62: 763-785.
13. Betancur-R, R., G.J.P. Naylor & G. Orti . 2014. Conserved genes, sampling error, and phylogenomic inference. Syst. Biol. 63: 257-262.
14. Chiari, Y. et al. 2012. Phylogenomic analyses support the position of turtles as the sister group of birds and crocodiles (Archosauria). BMC Biol. 10: 65.
15. Song, S. et al. 2012. Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics and the multispecies coalescent model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109: 14942-14947.
16. Jarvis, E.D. et al. 2014. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science 346: 1320-1331.
17. Maddison, W.P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 46: 523-536.
18. deQueiroz, A. & J. Gatesy . 2007. The supermatrix approach to systematics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 34-41.
19. Gatesy, J. & M.S. Springer . 2014. Phylogenetic analysis at deep timescales: unreliable gene trees, bypassed hidden support, and the coalescence/concatalescence conundrum. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 80: 231-266.
20. Springer, M.S. & J. Gatesy . 2014. Land plant origins and coalescence confusion. Trends Plant Sci. 19: 267-269.
21. Zhong, B., L. Liu & D. Penny . 2014. The multispecies coalescent model and land plant origins: a reply to Springer and Gatesy. Trends Plant Sci. 19: 270-272.
22. Liu, L. et al. 2009. Coalescent methods for estimating phylogenetic trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53: 320-328.
23. McCormack, J.E. et al. 2012. Ultraconserved elements are novel phylogenomic markers that resolve placental mammal phylogeny when combined with species tree analysis. Genome Res. 22: 746-754.
24. Edwards, S.V., L. Liu & D.K. Pearl . 2007. High-resolution species trees without concatenation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104: 5936-5941.
25. Gatesy, J. & M.S. Springer . 2013. Concatenation versus coalescence versus "concatalescence." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110: E1179.
26. Wu, S. et al. 2013. Reply to Gatesy and Springer: the multispecies coalescent model can effectively handle recombination and gene tree heterogeneity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110: E1180.
27. Xi, Z., J.S. Rest & C.C. Davis . 2013. Phylogenomics and coalescent analyses resolve extant seed plant relationships. PLoS ONE 8: e80870.
28. Xi, Z. et al. 2014. Coalescent versus concatenation methods and the placement of Amborella as sister to water lilies. Syst. Biol. 63: 919-932.
29. Liu, L., Z. Xi & C.C. Davis . 2015. Coalescent methods are robust to the simultaneous effects of long branches and incomplete lineage sorting. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32: 791-805.
30. Leaché, A.D. et al. 2014. A hybrid phylogenetic-phylogenomic approach for species tree estimation in African Agama lizards with applications to biogeography, character evolution, and diversification. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 79: 215-230.
31. Liu, L. & D.K. Pearl . 2007. Species trees from gene trees: reconstructing bayesian posterior distributions of a species phylogeny using estimated gene tree distributions. Syst. Biol. 56: 504-514.
32. Kubatko, L.S. & J.H. Degnan . 2007. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst. Biol. 56: 17-24.
33. Huang, H.T. et al. 2010. Sources of error inherent in species tree estimation: impact of mutational and coalescent effects on accuracy and implications for choosing among different methods. Syst. Biol. 59: 573-583.
34. Zhong, B. et al. 2013. Origin of land plants using the multispecies coalescent model. Trends Plant Sci. 18: 492-495.
35. Lanier, H.C. & L.L. Knowles . 2014. Applying species tree analyses to deep phylogenetic histories: challenges and potential suggested from a survey of empirical phylogenetic studies. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 83: 191-199.
36. Tian, Y. & L.S. Kubatko . 2014. Gene tree rooting methods give distributions that mimic the coalescent process. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 70: 63-69.
37. Rosenfeld, J.A., A. Payne & R. DeSalle . 2012. Random roots and lineage sorting. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 64: 12-20.
38. Knowles, L.L. et al. 2012. Full modeling versus summarizing gene tree uncertainty: method choice and species tree accuracy. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 65: 501-509.
39. Lanier, H.C. & L.L. Knowles . 2012. Is recombination a problem for species tree analyses? Syst. Biol. 61: 691-701.
40. Rannala, B. & Z. Yang . 2003. Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164: 1645-1656.
41. Degnan, J.H. & N.A. Rosenberg . 2009. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference, and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 332-340
42. Mirarab, S. et al. 2014. Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree. Science 346: 1250463.
43. Bayzid, M.S. & T. Warnow . 2013. Naive binning improves phylogenomic analyses. Bioinformatics 29: 2277-2284.
44. Degnan, J.H. & L. Salter . 2005. Gene tree distributions under the coalescent process. Evolution 59: 24-37.
45. Degnan, J.H. & N.A. Rosenberg . 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2: 762-768.
46. Kelchner, S.A. & M.A. Thomas . 2007. Model use in phylogenetics: nine key questions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 87-94.
47. Liu, L. et al. 2009. Estimating species phylogenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst. Biol. 58: 468-477.
48. Liu, L., L. Yu & S.V. Edwards . 2010. A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model. BMC Evol. Biol. 10: 302.
49. Heled, J. & A.J. Drummond . 2010. Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27: 570-580.
50. Jennings, W.B. & S.V. Edwards . 2005. Speciational history of Australian grass finches (Poephila) inferred from 30 gene trees. Evolution 59: 2033-2047.
51. Faircloth, B.C. et al. 2012. Ultraconserved elements anchor thousands of genetic markers spanning multiple evolutionary timescales. Syst. Biol. 61: 717-726.
52. Linkem, C.W., V.N. Minin & A.D. Leaché . 2014. Detecting the anomaly zone in species trees and evidence for a misleading signal in higher-level skink phylogeny (Squamata: Scincidae). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/012096.
53. Zhao, L. et al. 2013. Phylogenomic analyses of nuclear genes reveal the evolutionary relationships within the BEP clade and the evidence of positive selection in Poaceae. PLoS ONE 8: e64642.
54. Wickett, N.J. et al. 2014. Phylotranscriptomic analysis of the origin and early diversification of land plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111: E4859-E4868.
55. Weitemier, K. et al. 2014. Hyb-Seq: combining target enrichment and genome skimming for plant phylogenomics. Appl. Plant Sci. 2: 1400042.
56. Felsenstein, J. 2003. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
57. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27: 401-410.
58. Amborella Genome Project. 2013. The Amborella genome and the evolution of flowering plants. Science 342: 1241089.
59. Soltis, D.E. & P.S. Soltis . 2004. Amborella not a "basal angiosperm"? Not so fast. Am. J. Bot. 91: 997-1001.
60. Murphy, W.J. et al. 2001. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294: 2348-2351.
61. Murphy, W.J. et al. 2007. Using genomic data to unravel the root of the placental mammal phylogeny. Genome Res. 17: 413-421.
62. Thomson, R.C. et al. 2008. Developing markers for multilocus phylogenetics in non-model organisms: a test case with turtles. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 49: 514-525.
63. Suzuki, Y., G.V. Glazko & M. Nei . 2002. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99: 16138-16143.
64. Misawa, K. & M. Nei . 2003. Reanalysis of Murphy et al.'s data gives various mammalian phylogenies and suggests overcredibility of Bayesian trees. J. Mol. Evol. 57: S290-S296.
65. Seo, T.K. 2008. Calculating bootstrap probabilities of phylogeny using multilocus sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25: 960-971.
66. Hovmoller, R., L.L. Knowles & L.S. Kubatko . 2013. Effects of missing data on species tree estimation under the coalescent. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 69: 1057-1062.
67. Driskell, A.C. et al. 2004. Prospects for building the tree of life from large sequence databases. Science 306: 1172-1174.
68. Dunn, C.W. et al. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452: 745-745.
69. Simmons, M.P. & P.A. Goloboff . 2014. Dubious resolution and support from published sparse supermatrices: the importance of thorough tree searches. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 78: 334-348.
70. Lanier, H.C., H. Huang & L.L. Knowles . 2014. How low can you go? The effects of mutation rate on the accuracy of species tree estimation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 70: 112-119.
71. Knowles, L.L. & L.S. Kubatko . 2010. "Estimating species trees: an introduction to concepts and models." In Estimating Species Trees: Practical and Theoretical Aspects. L.L. Knowles & L.S. Kubatko, Eds.: 1-14. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
72. Leaché, A.D. et al. 2014. The influence of gene flow on species tree estimation: a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 63: 17-30.
73. Leaché, A.D. & B. Rannala . 2011. The accuracy of species tree estimation under simulation: a comparison of methods. Syst. Biol. 60: 126-137.
74. DeGiorgio, M. et al. 2014. An empirical evaluation of two-stage species tree inference strategies using a multilocus dataset from North American pines. BMC Evol. Biol. 14: 67.
75. Xi, Z., L. Liu & C.C. Davis . 2015. Genes with minimal phylogenetic information are problematic for coalescent analyses when gene tree estimation is biased. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. In review.
76. Romiguier, J. et al. 2013. Less is more in mammalian phylogenomics: AT-rich genes minimize tree conflicts and unravel the root of placental mammals. Mol. Biol. Evol 30: 2134-2144.
77. Roch, S. & M. Steel . 2015. Likelihood-based tree reconstruction on a concatenation of alignments can be statistically inconsistent. Theor. Pop. Biol. 100: 56-62.
78. Liu, L. & L. Yu . 2010. Phybase: an R package for species tree analysis. Bioinformatics 26: 962-963.
79. Rosenberg, N.A. 2013. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees: a unifying principle. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30: 2709-2713.
80. Huang, H.T. & L.L. Knowles . 2009. What is the danger of the anomaly zone for empirical phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 58: 527-536.
81. Rambaut, A. & N.C. Grassly . 1997. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic frees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13: 235-238.
82. Jukes, T.H. & C.R. Cantor . 1969. "Evolution of protein molecules." In Mammalian Protein Metabolism. H.N. Munro, Ed.: 21-123. New York: Academic Press.
83. Guindon, S. et al. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59: 307-321.
84. Aberer, A.J., K. Kobert & A. Stamatakis . 2014. ExaBayes: massively parallel Bayesian tree inference for the whole-genome era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31: 2553-2556.
85. Fan, H.H. & L.S. Kubatko . 2011. Estimating species trees using approximate Bayesian computation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59: 354-363.
86. Mossel, E. & S. Roch . 2010. Incomplete lineage sorting: consistent phylogeny estimation from multiple loci. IEEE-ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinfo. 7: 166-171.
87. Kubatko, L.S., B.C. Carstens & L.L. Knowles . 2009. STEM: species tree estimation using maximum likelihood for gene trees under coalescence. Bioinformatics 25: 971-973.
88. Wu, Y. 2012. Coalescent-based species tree inference from gene tree topologies under incomplete lineage sorting by maximum likelihood. Evolution 66: 763-775.
89. Mirarab, S. et al. 2014. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics 30: i541-i548.
90. Bryant, D. et al. 2012. Inferring species trees directly from biallelic genetic markers: bypassing gene trees in a full coalescent analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29: 1917-1932.
91. Chifman, J. & L. Kubatko . 2014. Quartet inference from SNP data under the coalescent model. Bioinformatics 30: 3317-3324.
92. Wu, Y. 2015. A coalescent-based method for population tree inference with haplotypes. Bioinformatics 31: 691-698.
93. Scally, A. et al. 2012. Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence. Nature 483: 169-175.
94. McCormack, J.E., H.T. Huang & L.L. Knowles . 2009. Maximum likelihood estimates of species trees: how ccuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design. Syst. Biol. 58: 501-508.
95. Hedges, S.B., K.D. Moberg & L.R. Maxson . 1990. Tetrapod phylogeny inferred from 18S and 28S ribosomal RNA sequences and a review of the evidence for amniote relationships. Mol. Biol. Evol. 7: 607-633.
96. Sharma, P.P. et al. 2012. Phylogenetic analysis of four nuclear protein-encoding genes largely corroborates the traditional classification of Bivalvia (Mollusca). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 65: 64-74.
97. Breinholt, J.W. & A.Y. Kawahara . 2013. Phylotranscriptomics: saturated third codon positions radically influence the estimation of trees based on next-gen data. Genome Biol. Evol. 5: 2082-2092.
98. Dutheil, J.Y. et al. 2009. Ancestral population genomics: the coalescent hidden Markov model approach. Genetics 183: 259-274.
99. Hobolth, A. et al. 2011. Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee, and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection. Genome Res. 21: 349-356.
100. White, M.A. et al. 2009. Fine-scale phylogenetic discordance across the house mouse genome. PLoS Genet. 5: e1000729.
101. Ryan, J.F. et al. 2013. The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution. Science 342: 1242592.
102. Steel, M. & A. Rodrigo . 2008. Maximum likelihood supertrees. Syst. Biol. 57: 243-250.
103. Smith, S.A., J.W. Brown & C.E. Hinchliff . 2013. Analyzing and synthesizing phylogenies using tree alignment graphs. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9. e1003223.
104. Reid, N.H. et al. 2013. Poor fit to the multispecies coalescent is widely detectable in empirical data. Syst. Biol. 63: 322-333.
105. Eckert, A.J. & B.C. Carstens . 2008. Does gene flow destroy phylogenetic signal? The performance of three methods for estimating species phylogenies in the presense of gene flow. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 49: 832-842.
106. Castillo-Ramírez, S. et al. 2010. "Bayesian estimation of species trees: a practical guide to optimal sampling and analysis." In Estimating Species Trees: Practical and Theoretical Aspects. L.L. Knowles & L.S. Kubatko, Eds.: 15-33. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
107. Stamatakis, A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2688-2690.
108. Ronquist, F. et al. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 61: 539-542.
109. Liu, L. 2008. BEST: Bayesian estimation of species trees under the coalescent model. Bioinformatics 24: 2542-2543.
110. Liu, L. & L. Yu . 2011. Estimating species trees from unrooted gene trees. Syst. Biol. 60: 661-667.
111. Liu, L., L. Yu & D.K. Pearl . 2010. Maximum tree: a consistent estimator of the species tree. J. Math. Biol. 60: 95-106.
112. Tonini, J., A. Moore, D. Stern, et al. 2015. Concatenation and species tree methods exhibit statistically indistinguishable accuracy under a range of simulated conditions. PLoS Currents Tree of Life. doi: 10.1371/currents.tol.34260cc27551a527b124ec5f6334b6be.