An introduction to supertree construction (and partitioned phylogenetic analyses) with a view toward the distinction between gene trees and species trees

Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and their Application in Evolutionary Biology

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 19-48

  Bininda Emonds, Olaf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957041360     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (100)

1. Adams EM III (1972) Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst Zool 21:390-397
2. Adams EM III (1986) N-trees as nestings: complexity, similarity, and consensus. J Classif 3:299-317
3. Arnold CL, Matthews J, Nunn CL (2010) The 10k Trees website: a new online resource for primate phylogeny. Evol Anthropol 19:114-118
4. Asher RJ, Müller J (2012) Molecular tools in palaeobiology: divergence and mechanisms. In: Asher RJ, Müller J (eds) From clone to bone: the synergy of morphological and molecular tools in palaeobiology. Cambridge studies in morphology and molecules: new paradigms in evolutionary biology, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1-15
5. Baker RH, DeSalle R (1997) Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. Syst Biol 46:654-673
6. Baum BR (1992) Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10
7. Beddard FE (1900) A book of whales. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York
8. Bergsten J (2005) A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 21(2):163-193
9. Berry V, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Semple C (2013) Amalgamating source trees with different taxonomic levels. Syst Biol 62(2):231-249
10. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2003) Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst Biol 52(6):839-848
11. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2004a) The evolution of supertrees. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):315-322
12. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2004b) New uses for old phylogenies: an introduction to the volume. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 3-14
13. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2004c) Trees versus characters and the supertree/supermatrix “paradox”. Syst Biol 53(2):356-359
14. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2010) The future of supertrees: bridging the gap with supermatrices. Palaeodiversity 3(Suppl.):99-106
15. Bininda-Emonds ORP (2011) Inferring the Tree of Life: chopping a phylogenomic problem down to size? BMC Biol 9:59
16. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Beck RMD, Purvis A (2005) Getting to the roots of matrix representation. Syst Biol 54(4):668-672
17. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Bryant HN (1998) Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst Biol 47(3):497-508
18. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Jones KE, Price SA, Cardillo M, Grenyer R, Purvis A (2004) Garbage in, garbage out: data issues in supertree construction. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the Tree of Life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 267-280
19. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Jones KE, 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. Syst Biol 52 (5):724-729
20. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Sanderson MJ (2001) Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony supertree construction. Syst Biol 50(4):565-579
21. Bremer K (1988) The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42:795-803
22. Bruen TC, Bryant D (2008) Parsimony via consensus. Syst Biol 57(2):251-256
23. Burleigh JG, Driskell AC, Sanderson MJ (2006) Supertree bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome-scale data sets. Syst Biol 55(3):426-440
24. Chaudhary R, Bansal MS, Wehe A, Fernandez-Baca D, Eulenstein O (2010) iGTP: a software package for large-scale gene tree parsimony analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 11:574
25. Chen D, Diao L, Eulenstein O, Fernandez-Baca D, Sanderson MJ (2003) Flipping: a supertree construction method. In: Janowitz MF, Lapointe F-J, McMorris FR, Mirkin B, Roberts FS (eds) Bioconsensus, vol 61., DIMACS Series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer scienceAmerican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 135-160
26. Chen D, Eulenstein O, Fernandez-Baca D (2004) Rainbow: a toolbox for phylogenetic supertree construction and analysis. Bioinformatics 20(16):2872-2873
27. Chippindale PT, Wiens JJ (1994) Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 43:278-287
28. Cotton JA, Page RDM (2004) Tangled trees from multiple markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 107-125
29. Cotton JA, Wilkinson M (2007) Majority-rule supertrees. Syst Biol 56(3):445-452
30. Creevey CJ, McInerney JO (2005) Clann: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21(3):390-392
31. Davis KE, Hill J (2010) The supertree tool kit. BMC Res Notes 3:95
32. de Queiroz A, Donoghue MJ, Kim J (1995) Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:657-681
33. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA (2006) Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet 2(5):762-768
34. Edwards SV (2009) Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63(1):1-19
35. Farris JS, Kluge AG, Eckhardt MJ (1970) A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Syst Zool 19:172-191
36. Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool 27:401-410
37. Felsenstein J (1985a) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791
38. Felsenstein J (1985b) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1-15
39. Gatesy J, Matthee C, DeSalle R, Hayashi C (2002) Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst Biol 51(4):652-664
40. Gatesy J, O’Grady P, Baker RH (1999) Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 15(3):271-313
41. Gatesy J, Springer MS (2004) A critique of matrix representation with parsimony supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 369-388
42. Gatesy J, Springer MS (2013) Concatenation versus coalescence versus “concatalescence”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(13):E1179-E1179
43. Goodman M, Czelusniak J, Moore GW, Romero-Herrera AE, Matsuda G (1979) Fitting the gene lineage into its species lineage, a parsimony strategy illustrated by cladograms constructed from globin sequences. Syst Zool 28(2):132-163
44. Gordon AD (1986) Consensus supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J Classif 3:31-39
45. Graybeal A (1998) Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst Biol 47(1):9-17
46. Hailer F, Kutschera VE, Hallstrom BM, Klassert D, Fain SR, Leonard JA, Arnason U, Janke A (2012) Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage. Science 336(6079):344-347. doi:10.1126/science.1216424
47. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
48. Hillis DM (1987) Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:23-42
49. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2012) The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491:444-448
50. Kluge AG (1989) A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst Zool 38:7-25
51. Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SYW, Guindon S (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Mol Biol Evol 29(6):1695-1701
52. Lapointe F-J, Cucumel G (1997) The average consensus procedure: combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst Biol 46(2):306-312
53. Lapointe F-J, Kirsch JAW, Hutcheon JM (1999) Total evidence, consensus, and bat phylogeny: a distance based approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol 11(1):55-66
54. Lapointe F-J, Levasseur C (2004) Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 87-105
55. Lee MS, Camens AB (2009) Strong morphological support for the molecular evolutionary tree of placental mammals. J Evol Biol 22 (11):2243-2257. doi:JEB1843 [pii] 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01843.x
56. Lindqvist C, Schuster SC, Sun Y, Talbot SL, Qi J, Ratan A, Tomsho LP, Kasson L, Zeyl E, Aars J, Miller W, Ingolfsson O, Bachmann L, Wiig O (2010) Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(11):5053-5057. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914266107
57. Liu F-GR, Miyamoto MM, Freire NP, Ong PQ, Tennant MR, Young TS, Gugel KF (2001) Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-1789
58. Liu L, Yu L (2010) Phybase: an R package for species tree analysis. Bioinformatics 26:962-963
59. Liu L, Yu LL, Kubatko L, Pearl DK, Edwards SV (2009a) Coalescent methods for estimating phylogenetic trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol 53(1):320-328
60. Liu L, Yu LL, Pearl DK, Edwards SV (2009b) Estimating species phylogenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst Biol 58(5):468-477
61. Liu LA, Yu LL, Edwards SV (2010) A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model. BMC Evol Biol 10
62. Maddison WP (1997) Gene trees in species trees. Syst Biol 46(3):523-536
63. Miller W, Schuster SC, Welch AJ, Ratan A, Bedoya-Reina OC, Zhao F, Kim HL, Burhans RC, Drautz DI, Wittekindt NE, Tomsho LP, Ibarra-Laclette E, Herrera-Estrella L, Peacock E, Farley S, Sage GK, Rode K, Obbard M, Montiel R, Bachmann L, Ingolfsson O, Aars J, Mailund T, Wiig O, Talbot SL, Lindqvist C (2012) Polar and brown bear genomes reveal ancient admixture and demographic footprints of past climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(36):E2382-E2390. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210506109
64. Mossel E, Roch S (2007) Incomplete lineage sorting: consistent phylogeny estimation from multiple loci. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0262
65. Murphy WJ, Janecka JE, Stadler T, Eizirik E, Ryder OA, Gatesy J, Meredith RW, Springer MS (2012) Response to comment on “impacts of the cretaceous terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification”. Science 337(6090):34
66. Nguyen N, Mirarab S, Warnow T (2012) MRL and SuperFine plus MRL: new supertree methods. Algorithms Mol Biol 7(1):3
67. Nyakatura K, Bininda-Emonds ORP (2012) Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates. BMC Biol 10:12
68. Page RDM (1994) Maps between trees and cladistic analysis of historical associations among genes, organisms, and areas. Syst Biol 43(1):58-77
69. Page RDM (2002) Modified mincut supertrees. In: Guigo R, Gusfield D (eds) Proceedings of Algorithms in bioinformatics, second international workshop, WABI, Rome, Italy. Lecture Notes in computer science, vol 2452. Springer, Berlin, pp 537-552, 17-21 Sept 2002
70. Piaggio-Talice R, Burleigh JG, Eulenstein O (2004) Quartet supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 173-191
71. Ponstein J (1966) Matrices in graph and network theory. Van Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands Purvis A (1995a) A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 348:405-421
72. Purvis A (1995b) A modification to Baum and Ragan’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst Biol 44:251-255
73. Ragan MA (1992) Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol 1:53-58
74. Rannala B, Yang ZH (2003) Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164:1645-1656
75. Ranwez V, Berry V, Criscuolo A, Fabre PH, Guillemot S, Scornavacca C, Douzery EJ (2007) PhySIC: a veto supertree method with desirable properties. Syst Biol 56 (5):798-817. doi:782748826 [pii] 10.1080/10635150701639754
76. Rokas A, Holland PW (2000) Rare genomic changes as a tool for phylogenetics. Trends Ecol Evol 15(11):454-459
77. Ronquist F (1996) Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst Biol 45:247-253
78. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Britton T (2004) Bayesian supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 193-224
79. Rosenberg NA (2013) Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees: a unifying principle. Mol Biol Evol 30(12):2709-2713. doi:10.1093/molbev/mst160
80. Roshan U, Moret BME, Williams TL, Warnow T (2004) Performance of supertree methods on various data set decompositions. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 301-328
81. Ross HA, Rodrigo AG (2004) An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 35-63
82. Salamin N, Hodkinson TR, Savolainen V (2002) Building supertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Syst Biol 51(1):136-150
83. Sanderson MJ, Donoghue MJ, Piel W, Eriksson T (1994) TreeBASE: a prototype database of phylogenetic analyses and an interactive tool for browsing the phylogeny of life. Am J Bot 81(6):183
84. Schmidt HA, Strimmer K, Vingron M, von Haeseler A (2002) TREE-PUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18(3):502-504
85. Scornavacca C, Berry V, Lefort V, Douzery EJ, Ranwez V (2008) PhySIC_IST: cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees. BMC Bioinformatics 9:413. doi:1471-2105-9-413 [pii] 10.1186/1471-2105-9-413
86. Semple C, Steel M (2000) A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl Math 105(1—3):147—158
87. Smith SA, Beaulieu JM, Stamatakis A, Donoghue MJ (2011) Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. Am J Bot 98(3):404-414
88. Song S, Liu L, Edwards SV, Wu SY (2012) Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics and the multispecies coalescent model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(37):14942-14947
89. Stamatakis A (in press) RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033
90. Steel M, Dress AWM, Böcker S (2000) Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Syst Biol 49(2):363-368
91. Steel M, Rodrigo A (2008) Maximum likelihood supertrees. Syst Biol 57(2):243-250
92. Strimmer K, von Haeseler A (1996) Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol Biol Evol 13:964-969
93. Swenson MS, Suri R, Linder CR, Warnow T (2012) SuperFine: fast and accurate supertree estimation. Syst Biol 61(2):214-227
94. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods).Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
95. Teeling EC, Hedges SB (2013) Making the impossible possible: rooting the tree of placental mammals. Mol Biol Evol 30(9):1999-2000
96. Thorley JL, Wilkinson M (2003) A view of supertree methods. In: Janowitz MF, Lapointe F-J, McMorris FR, Mirkin B, Roberts FS (eds) Bioconsensus, vol 61., DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer scienceAmerican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 185-193
97. Wehe A, Bansal MS, Burleigh JG, Eulenstein O (2008) DupTree: a program for large-scale phylogenetic analyses using gene tree parsimony. Bioinformatics 24(13):1540-1541
98. Wilkinson M, Pisani D, Cotton JA, Corfe I (2005) Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst Biol 54(5):823-831
99. Wilkinson M, Thorley JL, Pisani D, Lapointe F-J, McInerney JO (2004) Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds ORP (ed) Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the tree of life, computational biology, vol 4. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 227-246
100. Wu SY, Song S, Liu L, Edwards SV (2013) Reply to Gatesy and Springer: The multispecies coalescent model can effectively handle recombination and gene tree heterogeneity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(13):E1180-E1180