Coalescent methods are robust to the simultaneous effects of long branches and incomplete lineage sorting

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 791-805

  Liu, Liang ^a   Xi, Zhenxiang ^b   Davis, Charles C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ancient rapid radiation; Coalescent methods; Concatenation methods; Incomplete lineage sorting; Long branch artifacts

Indexed keywords

ARTIFACT; RADIATION; SPECIES; TREE OF LIFE; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETICS; MAMMAL; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; PROCEDURES; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, GENETIC; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC SPECIATION; MAMMALS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84965093929     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu331     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Anderson FE, Swofford DL. 2004. Should we be worried about longbranch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18 S rDNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 33:440-451.
2. Bayzid MS, Warnow T. 2013. Naive binning improves phylogenomic analyses. Bioinformatics 29:2277-2284.
3. Bergsten J. 2005. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 21: 163-193.
4. Brinkmann H, Van der Giezen M, Zhou Y, De Raucourt GP, Philippe H. 2005. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 54:743-757.
5. Carling MD, Brumfield RT. 2008. Integrating phylogenetic and population genetic analyses of multiple loci to test species divergence hypotheses in Passerina buntings. Genetics 178:363-377.
6. Davis CC, Webb CO, Wurdack KJ, Jaramillo CA, Donoghue MJ. 2005. Explosive radiation of Malpighiales supports a mid-Cretaceous origin of modern tropical rain forests. Am Nat. 165:E36-E65.
7. de Queiroz A, Gatesy J. 2007. The supermatrix approach to systematics. Trends Ecol Evol. 22:34-41.
8. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA. 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2:e68.
9. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA. 2009. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol Evol. 24: 332-340.
10. Dunn CW, Hejnol A, Matus DQ, Pang K, Browne WE, Smith SA, Seaver E, Rouse GW, Obst M, Edgecombe GD, et al. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452:745-749.
11. Edwards SV. 2009. Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63:1-19.
12. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool. 27:401-410.
13. Finet C, Timme RE, Delwiche CF, Marlétaz F. 2010. Multigene phylogeny of the green lineage reveals the origin and diversification of land plants. Curr Biol. 20:2217-2222.
14. Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 59:307-321.
15. Heath TA, Hedtke SM, Hillis DM. 2008. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. J Syst Evol. 46:239-257.
16. Hejnol A, Obst M, Stamatakis A, Ott M, Rouse GW, Edgecombe GD, Martinez P, Baguñá J, Bailly X, Jondelius U, et al. 2009. Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomicmethods. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 276:4261-4270.
17. Heled J, Drummond AJ. 2010. Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol. 27:570-580.
18. Hess J, Goldman N. 2011. Addressing inter-gene heterogeneity in maximum likelihood phylogenomic analysis: yeasts revisited. PLoS One 6: e22783.
19. Hillis DM, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW. 1994. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264:671-677.
20. Huelsenbeck JP. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst Biol. 44:17-48.
21. Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst Biol. 42:247-264.
22. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN, editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York: Academic Press. p. 21-132.
23. Kluge AG. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst Zool. 38: 7-25.
24. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2009. Long-branch attraction bias and inconsistency in Bayesian phylogenetics. PLoS One 4:e7891.
25. Kubatko LS, Carstens BC, Knowles LL. 2009. STEM: species tree estimation using maximum likelihood for gene trees under coalescence. Bioinformatics 25:971-973.
26. Kubatko LS, Degnan JH. 2007. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst Biol. 56:17-24.
27. Kück P, Mayer C,Wägele J-W, Misof B. 2012. Long branch effects distort maximum likelihood phylogenies in simulations despite selection of the correct model. PLoS One 7:e36593.
28. Kutschera VE, Bidon T, Hailer F, Rodi JL, Fain SR, Janke A. 2014. Bears in a forest of gene trees: phylogenetic inference is complicated by incomplete lineage sorting and gene flow.Mol Biol Evol. 31:2004-2017.
29. Lanfear R, Welch JJ, Bromham L. 2010. Watching the clock: studying variation in rates of molecular evolution between species. Trends Ecol Evol. 25:495-503.
30. Lartillot N, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2007. Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol Biol. 7(Suppl 1):S4.
31. Leaché AD, Rannala B. 2011. The accuracy of species tree estimation under simulation: a comparison of methods. Syst Biol. 60:126-137.
32. Lee EK, Cibrian-Jaramillo A, Kolokotronis SO, Katari MS, Stamatakis A, OttM, Chiu JC, Little DP, Stevenson DW, McCombie WR, et al. 2011. A functional phylogenomic view of the seed plants. PLoS Genet. 7: e1002411.
33. Liu L. 2008. BEST: Bayesian estimation of species trees under the coalescent model. Bioinformatics 24:2542-2543.
34. Liu L, Edwards SV. 2009. Phylogenetic analysis in the anomaly zone. Syst Biol. 58:452-460.
35. Liu L, Yu L. 2010. Phybase: an R package for species tree analysis. Bioinformatics 26:962-963.
36. Liu L, Yu L. 2011. Estimating species trees from unrooted gene trees. Syst Biol. 60:661-667.
37. Liu L, Yu L, Edwards SV. 2010. A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model. BMC Evol Biol. 10:302.
38. Liu L, Yu L, Kubatko L, Pearl DK, Edwards SV. 2009. Coalescent methods for estimating phylogenetic trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 53:320-328.
39. Liu L, Yu L, Pearl DK, Edwards SV. 2009. Estimating species phylogenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst Biol. 58:468-477.
40. Lyons-Weiler J, Hoelzer GA. 1997. Escaping from the Felsenstein zone by detecting long branches in phylogenetic data. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 8: 375-384.
41. Mirarab S, Bayzid MS, Warnow T. 2014. Evaluating summary methods formulti-locus species tree estimation in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting. Syst Biol. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syu063.
42. Mirarab S, Reaz R, Bayzid MS, Zimmermann T, SwensonMS, Warnow T. 2014. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics 30:i541-i548.
43. Pamilo P, Nei M. 1988. Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Mol Biol Evol. 5:568-583.
44. Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Copley RR, Moroz LL, Nakano H, Poustka AJ, Wallberg A, Peterson KJ, Telford MJ. 2011. Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella. Nature 470:255-258.
45. Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Lavrov DV, Littlewood DTJ, Manuel M, Worheide G, Baurain D. 2011. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9:e1000602.
46. Philippe H, Roure B. 2011. Difficult phylogenetic questions: more data, maybe; better methods, certainly. BMC Biol. 9:91.
47. Pick KS, Philippe H, Schreiber F, Erpenbeck D, Jackson DJ, Wrede P, Wiens M, Alié A, Morgenstern B, Manuel M, et al. 2010. Improved phylogenomic taxon sampling noticeably affects nonbilaterian relationships. Mol Biol Evol. 27:1983-1987.
48. Pol D, Siddall ME. 2001. Biases in maximum likelihood and parsimony: a simulation approach to a 10-taxon case. Cladistics 17:266-281.
49. Pollard DA, Iyer VN, Moses AM, Eisen MB. 2006. Widespread discordance of gene trees with species tree in Drosophila: evidence for incomplete lineage sorting. PLoS Genet. 2:e173.
50. Rambaut A, Grassly NC. 1997. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput Appl Biosci. 13:235-238.
51. Rannala B, Yang Z. 2003. Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164:1645-1656.
52. Regier JC, Shultz JW, Zwick A, Hussey A, Ball B, Wetzer R, Martin JW, Cunningham CW. 2010. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 463: 1079-1083.
53. Salichos L, Rokas A. 2013. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 497:327-331.
54. Sanderson MJ. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 19:101-109.
55. Sanderson MJ, Wojciechowski MF, Hu J-M, Khan TS, Brady SG. 2000. Error, bias, and long-branch attraction in data for two chloroplast photosystem genes in seed plants. Mol Biol Evol. 17:782-797.
56. Seo TK. 2008. Calculating bootstrap probabilities of phylogeny using multilocus sequence data. Mol Biol Evol. 25:960-971.
57. Siddall ME. 1998. Success of parsimony in the four-taxon case: longbranch repulsion by likelihood in the Farris Zone. Cladistics 14: 209-220.
58. Siddall ME, Whiting MF. 1999. Long-branch abstractions. Cladistics 15: 9-24.
59. Smith SA, Donoghue MJ. 2008. Rates of molecular evolution are linked to life history in flowering plants. Science 322:86-89.
60. Smith SA, Wilson NG, Goetz FE, Feehery C, Andrade SCS, Rouse GW, Giribet G, Dunn CW. 2011. Resolving the evolutionary relationships of molluscs with phylogenomic tools. Nature 480:364-367.
61. Song S, Liu L, Edwards SV, Wu S. 2012. Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics and the multispecies coalescent model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109:14942-14947.
62. Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30: 1312-1313.
63. Stefanović S, Rice DW, Palmer JD. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol Biol. 4:35.
64. Swofford DL,Waddell PJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Foster PG, Lewis PO, Rogers JS. 2001. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst Biol. 50: 525-539.
65. Timme RE, Bachvaroff TR, Delwiche CF. 2012. Broad phylogenomic sampling and the sister lineage of land plants. PLoS One 7:e29696.
66. Tsagkogeorga G, Parker J, Stupka E, Cotton JA, Rossiter SJ. 2013. Phylogenomic analyses elucidate the evolutionary relationships of bats. Curr Biol. 23:2262-2267.
67. Wall JD, Kim SK, Luca F, Carbone L, Mootnick AR, de Jong PJ, Di Rienzo A. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting is common in extant gibbon genera. PLoS One 8:e53682.
68. Whitfield JB, Kjer KM. 2008. Ancient rapid radiations of insects: challenges for phylogenetic analysis. Annu Rev Entomol. 53:449-472.
69. Whitfield JB, Lockhart PJ. 2007. Deciphering ancient rapid radiations. Trends Ecol Evol. 22:258-265.
70. Wiens JJ. 2005. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction? Syst Bio.l 54:731-742.
71. William J, Ballard O. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:334.
72. Wodniok S, Brinkmann H, Glockner G, Heidel A, Philippe H, Melkonian M, Becker B. 2011. Origin of land plants: do conjugating green algae hold the key? BMC Evol Biol. 11:104.
73. Wu D, Hugenholtz P, Mavromatis K, Pukall R, Dalin E, Ivanova NN, Kunin V, Goodwin L, Wu M, Tindall BJ, et al. 2009. A phylogenydriven genomic encyclopaedia of Bacteria and Archaea. Nature 462: 1056-1060.
74. Wu Y. 2012. Coalescent-based species tree inference from gene tree topologies under incomplete lineage sorting by maximum likelihood. Evolution 66:763-775.
75. Wurdack KJ, Davis CC. 2009. Malpighiales phylogenetics: gaining ground on one of the most recalcitrant clades in the angiosperm tree of life. Am J Bot. 96:1551-1570.
76. Xi Z, Liu L, Rest JS, Davis CC. 2014. Coalescent versus concatenation methods and the placement of Amborella as sister to water lilies. Syst Biol. 63:919-932.
77. Xi Z, Rest JS, Davis CC. 2013. Phylogenomics and coalescent analyses resolve extant seed plant relationships. PLoS One 8:e80870.
78. Xi Z, Ruhfel BR, Schaefer H, Amorim AM, Sugumaran M, Wurdack KJ, Endress PK, Matthews ML, Stevens PF, Mathews S, et al. 2012. Phylogenomics and a posteriori data partitioning resolve the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation Malpighiales. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109:17519-17524.
79. Zhong B, Liu L, Yan Z, Penny D. 2013. Origin of land plants using the multispecies coalescent model. Trends Plant Sci. 18:492-495.
80. Zhou X, Xu S, Xu J, Chen B, Zhou K, Yang G. 2012. Phylogenomic analysis resolves the interordinal relationships and rapid diversification of the Laurasiatherian mammals. Syst Biol. 61:150-164.