LS3: A Method for Improving Phylogenomic Inferences When Evolutionary Rates Are Heterogeneous among Taxa

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1625-1634

  Rivera Rivera, Carlos J ^a,b   Montoya Burgos, Juan I ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^b Institute of Genetics and Genomics in Geneva (iGE3)   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Artifacts; Glires; Long branch attraction; Nematoda; Phylogenomics; Rate heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; PROTEIN;

ARTHROPOD; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BILATERIA; DEUTEROSTOMIA; EVOLUTIONARY RATE; GLIRES; LONG BRANCH ATTRACTION; NEMATODE; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENOMICS; TAXON; ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DNA SEQUENCE; EVOLUTION; GENETICS; MAMMAL; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; PROCEDURES; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; ARTIFACTS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MAMMALS; MODELS, GENETIC; NEMATODA; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84973364667     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msw043     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abascal F, Zardoya R, Telford MJ. 2010. TranslatorX: multiple alignment of nucleotide sequences guided by amino acid translations. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:W7-W13
2. Aguinaldo A, Turbeville J, Linford L, RiveraMC, Garey JR, Raff RA, Lake JA. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-493
3. Akanni WA, Creevey CJ, Wilkinson M, Pisani D. 2014. L.U.St: a tool for approximated maximum likelihood supertree reconstruction. BMC Bioinformatics 15:183
4. Bergsten J. 2005. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 21:163-193
5. Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 1999. Archaea sister group of Bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 16:817-825
6. Brinkmann H, van der Giezen M, Zhou Y, Poncelin Raucourt G, Philippe H. 2005. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 54:743-757
7. D'Erchia A, Gissi C, Pesole G, Saccone C, Arnason U. 1996. The guinea-pig is not a rodent. Nature 381:597-600
8. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool. 27:401-410
9. Felsenstein J. 1981. Evolutionary trees fromDNA sequences: amaximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 17:368-376
10. Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates, Inc
11. Fletcher W, Yang Z. 2009. INDELible: a flexible simulator of biological sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 26:1879-1888
12. Goremykin VV, Nikiforova SV, Biggs PJ, Zhong B, Delange P, Martin W, Woetzel S, Atherton R, McLenachan P, Lockhart PJ. 2013. The evolutionary root of flowering plants. Syst Biol. 62:50-61
13. Goremykin VV, Nikiforova SV, Bininda-Emonds ORP. 2010. Automated removal of noisy data in phylogenomic analyses. J Mol Evol. 71:319-331
14. Guindon S, Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol. 52(5): 696-704
15. Ho S, Jermiin L. 2004. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. Syst Biol. 53(49): 623-637
16. Jombart T, Dray S. 2010. Adephylo: new tools for investigating the phylogenetic signal in biological traits. Bioinformatics 26(15): 1907-1909
17. 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 7:1-7
18. 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 (1 Suppl):1-14
19. Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2004. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1095-1109
20. Lemmon AR, Brown JM, Stanger-Hall K, Lemmon EM. 2009. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Syst Biol. 58:130-145
21. Montoya-Burgos JI. 2011. Patterns of positive selection and neutral evolution in the protein-coding genes of Tetraodon and Takifugu. PloS One 6(9): e24800
22. Moran R,Morgan C, O'Connell M. 2015. A guide to phylogenetic reconstruction using heterogeneous models-A case study fromthe root of the placental mammal tree. Computation 3:177-196
23. Nikolaev S, Montoya-Burgos JI, Margulies EH, Rougemont J, Nyffeler B, Antonarakis SE. 2007. Early history of mammals is elucidated with the ENCODE multiple species sequencing data. PLoS Genet. 3:e2
24. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289-290
25. Parks S, Goldman N. 2014. Maximum likelihood inference of small trees in the presence of long branches. Syst Biol. 63(5): 798-811
26. Philippe H, Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Lartillot N. 2005a. Phylogenomics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 36:541-562
27. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005b. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia.Mol Biol Evol. 22:1246-1253
28. Philippe H, Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Delsuc F. 2005c. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol. 5:1-8
29. Pisani D. 2004. Identifying and removing fast-evolving sites using compatibility analysis: an example from the Arthropoda. Syst Biol. 53:978-989
30. R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing
31. Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N, Brinkmann H, Roure B, Lartillot N, Lang BF, Philippe H. 2007. Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst Biol. 56:389-399
32. Roure B, Baurain D, Philippe H. 2013. Impact of missing data on phylogenies inferred from empirical phylogenomic data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 30:197-214
33. Salichos L, Rokas A. 2013. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 497:327-331
34. Soltis DE, Albert V, Savolainen V, Hilu K, Qiu Y-L, Chase MW, Farris JS, Stefanović S, Rice DW, Palmer JD, et al. 2004. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 9:477-483
35. 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
36. Sperling EA, Peterson K, Pisani D. 2009. Phylogenetic-signal dissection of nuclear housekeeping genes supports the paraphyly of sponges and the monophyly of eumetazoa. Mol Biol Evol. 26(10):2261-2274
37. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690
38. Stefanović S, Rice DW, Palmer JD. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: amborella or monocots? BMC Evol Biol. 4:35
39. Sullivan J, Swofford D. 1997. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenetics. J MammEvol. 4:77-86
40. Talavera G, Castresana J. 2007. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol. 56:564-577
41. Waterhouse RM, Tegenfeldt F, Li J, Zdobnov EM, Kriventseva EV. 2013. OrthoDB: a hierarchical catalog of animal, fungal and bacterial orthologs. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:D358-D365
42. Yang Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximatemethods. J Mol Evol. 39:306-314
43. Yang Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 24(8): 1586-1591
44. Yang Z, Rannala B. 2012. Molecular phylogenetics: principles and practice. Nat Rev Genet. 13:303-314
45. Zhou X, Lin Z, Ma H. 2010. Phylogenetic detection of numerous gene duplications shared by animals, fungi and plants. Genome Biol. 11:R38