A genome-scale investigation of how sequence, function, and tree-based gene properties influence phylogenetic inference

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 8, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 2565-2580

  Shen, Xing Xing ^a   Salichos, Leonidas ^a,b   Rokas, Antonis ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Correlation; Gene function; Gene tree; Nuclear gene; Phylogenetic signal; Prediction

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; FUNGAL GENOME; GENETICS; MAMMAL; PHYLOGENY; PROCEDURES; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STANDARDS; YEAST;

ANIMALS; BASE COMPOSITION; GENOME, FUNGAL; MAMMALS; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; YEASTS;

EID: 85008426692     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evw179     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Aguileta G, et al. 2008. Assessing the performance of single-copy genes for recovering robust phylogenies. Syst Biol. 57:613-627.
2. Barraclough TG, Nee S. 2001. Phylogenetics and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 16:391-399.
3. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
4. Bayzid MS, Warnow T. 2013. Naive binning improves phylogenomic analyses. Bioinformatics 29:2277-2284.
5. Betancur RR, Li C, Munroe TA, Ballesteros JA, Ortí G. 2013. Addressing gene tree discordance and non-stationarity to resolve a multi-locus phylogeny of the flatfishes (Teleostei: Pleuronectiformes). Syst Biol. 62:763-785.
6. Betancur RR, Naylor GJP, Ortí G. 2014. Conserved genes, sampling error, and phylogenomic inference. Syst Biol. 63:257-262.
7. Blackburne BP, Whelan S. 2013. Class of multiple sequence alignment algorithm affects genomic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 30:642-653.
8. Brandley MC, et al. 2015. 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. 15:62.
9. Busby MA, et al. 2011. Expression divergence measured by transcriptome sequencing of four yeast species. BMC Genomics 12:635.
10. Byrne KP, Wolfe KH. 2005. The yeast gene order browser: combining curated homology and syntenic context reveals gene fate in polyploid species. Genome Res. 15:1456-1461.
11. Capella-Gutierrez S, Kauff F, Gabaldon T. 2014. A phylogenomics approach for selecting robust sets of phylogenetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 42:e54.
12. Chatr-Aryamontri A, et al. 2015. The BioGRID interaction database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:D470-D478.
13. Chen MY, Liang D, Zhang P. 2015. Selecting question-specific genes to reduce incongruence in phylogenomics: a case study of jawed vertebrate backbone phylogeny. Syst Biol. 64:1104-1120.
14. Clark AG, et al. 2007. Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature 450:203-218.
15. Collins TM, Fedrigo O, Naylor GJP. 2005. Choosing the best genes for the job: the case for stationary genes in genome-scale phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 54:493-500.
16. Conant GC, Lewis PO. 2001. Effects of nucleotide composition bias on the success of the parsimony criterion in phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 18:1024-1033.
17. Crawford NG, et al. 2012. More than 1000 ultraconserved elements provide evidence that turtles are the sister group of archosaurs. Biol Lett. 8:783-786.
18. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2011. ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27:164-165.
19. Dell'Ampio E, et al. 2014. Decisive data sets in phylogenomics: lessons from studies on the phylogenetic relationships of primarily wingless insects. Mol Biol Evol. 31:239-249.
20. Deng W, Wang Y, Liu Z, Cheng H, Xue Y. 2014. HemI: a toolkit for illustrating heatmaps. PLoS One 9:e111988.
21. Doyle VP, Young RE, Naylor GJP, Brown JM. 2015. Can we identify genes with increased phylogenetic reliability? Syst Biol. 64:824-837.
22. Drummond DA, Raval A, Wilke CO. 2006. A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 23:327-337.
23. Faircloth BC, et al. 2012. Ultraconserved elements anchor thousands of genetic markers spanning multiple evolutionary timescales. Syst Biol. 61:717-726.
24. Faircloth BC, Sorenson L, Santini F, Alfaro ME. 2013. A phylogenomic perspective on the radiation of ray-finned fishes based upon targeted sequencing of ultraconserved elements (UCEs). PLoS One 8:e65923.
25. Groemping U. 2006. Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J Stat Softw 17:1-27.
26. Hahn MW, Nakhleh L. 2016. Irrational exuberance for resolved species trees. Evolution 70:7-17.
27. Hess J, Goldman N. 2011. Addressing inter-gene heterogeneity in maximum likelihood phylogenomic analysis: yeasts revisited. PLoS One 6:e22783.
28. Hittinger CT, Johnston M, Tossberg JT, Rokas A. 2010. Leveraging skewed transcript abundance by RNA-Seq to increase the genomic depth of the tree of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:1476-1481.
29. Hossain ASMM, Blackburne BP, Shah A, Whelan S. 2015. Evidence of statistical inconsistency of phylogenetic methods in the presence of multiple sequence alignment uncertainty. Genome Biol Evol. 7:2102-2116.
30. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat. 5:299-314.
31. James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. 2013. An introduction to statistical learning. In: Gareth James, Daniela Witten,Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. Springer texts in statistics. Vol. 103. New York: Springer. p. 244-248.
32. Jarvis ED, et al. 2014. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science 346:1320-1331.
33. Jian S, et al. 2008. Resolving an ancient, rapid radiation in Saxifragales. Syst Biol. 57:38-57.
34. Kainer D, Lanfear R. 2015. The effects of partitioning on phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 32:1611-1627.
35. Katoh K, Standley DM. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 30:772-780.
36. Kimura M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626.
37. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-984.
38. Lakner C, van der Mark P, Huelsenbeck JP, Larget B, Ronquist F. 2008. Efficiency of Markov chain Monte Carlo tree proposals in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 57:86-103.
39. Landan G, Graur D. 2008. Local reliability measures from sets of co-optimal multiple sequence alignments. Pac Symp Biocomput. 13:15-24.
40. Lemmon AR, Emme SA, Lemmon EM. 2012. Anchored hybrid enrichment for massively high-throughput phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 61:727-744.
41. Lemmon AR, Moriarty EC. 2004. The importance of proper model assumption in bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 53:265-277.
42. Liu K, Raghavan S, Nelesen S, Linder CR, Warnow T. 2009. Rapid and accurate large-scale coestimation of sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees. Science 324:1561-1564.
43. López-Giráldez F, Moeller AH, Townsend JP. 2013. Evaluating phylogenetic informativeness as a predictor of phylogenetic signal for meta-zoan, fungal, and mammalian phylogenomic data sets. Biomed Res Int. 2013:1-14.
44. López-Giráldez F, Townsend JP. 2011. PhyDesign?: an online application for profiling phylogenetic informativeness. BMC Evol Biol. 11:152.
45. Luo A, et al. 2010. Performance of criteria for selecting evolutionary models in phylogenetics: a comprehensive study based on simulated datasets. BMC Evol Biol. 10:242.
46. Lumley T. 2009. T. Lumley Package “leaps”. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leaps/leaps.pdf, last accessed on May 20, 2016.
47. McCormack JE, 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.
48. McDonnell AV, Jiang T, Keating AE, Berger B. 2006. Paircoil2: improved prediction of coiled coils from sequence. Bioinformatics 22:356-358.
49. Mirarab S, Bayzid MS, Boussau B, Warnow T. 2014. Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree. Science 346:1250463-1250463.
50. Mirarab S, Reaz R, et al. 2014. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics 30:i541-i548.
51. Misof B, et al. 2014. Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 346:763-767.
52. Morgan CC, et al. 2013. Heterogeneous models place the root of the placental mammal phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol. 30:2145-2156.
53. Neafsey DE, et al. 2015. Highly evolvable malaria vectors: the genomes of 16 Anopheles mosquitoes. Science 347:1258522.
54. Nylander JA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey JL. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst Biol. 53:47-67.
55. Parker J, Rambaut A, Pybus OG. 2008. Correlating viral phenotypes with phylogeny: accounting for phylogenetic uncertainty. Infect Genet Evol. 8:239-246.
56. Peden JF. 1999. Correspondence analysis of codon usage. Available from: http://codonw.sourceforge.net/, last accessed on February 17, 2015.
57. Peloso PLV, et al. 2016. The impact of anchored phylogenomics and taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference in narrow-mouthed frogs (Anura, Microhylidae). Cladistics 32:113-140.
58. Philippe H, Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Delsuc F. 2005. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol. 5:50.
59. Phillips MJ, Penny D. 2003. The root of the mammalian tree inferred from whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 28:171-185.
60. Pisani D, et al. 2015. Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 112:15402-15407.
61. Polzin K, Rokas A. 2014. Evaluating rare amino acid substitutions (RGC_CAMs) in a yeast model clade. PLoS One 9:e92213.
62. Regier JC, et al. 2008. Resolving arthropod phylogeny: exploring phylogenetic signal within 41 kb of protein-coding nuclear gene sequence. Syst Biol. 57:920-938.
63. Regier JC, et al. 2010. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 463:1079-1083.
64. Robinson DF, Foulds LR. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci. 53:131-147.
65. Rogozin IB, Wolf YI, Carmel L, Koonin EV. 2007. Ecdysozoan clade rejected by genome-wide analysis of rare amino acid replacements. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1080-1090.
66. Rokas A, Williams BL, King N, Carroll SB. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804.
67. Romiguier J, et al. 2016. Phylogenomics controlling for base compositional bias reveals a single origin of eusociality in corbiculate bees. Mol Biol Evol. 33:670-678.
68. Romiguier J, Ranwez V, Delsuc F, Galtier N, Douzery EJP. 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.
69. 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.
70. Salichos L, Rokas A. 2013. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 497:327-331.
71. Salichos L, Stamatakis A, Rokas A. 2014. Novel information theory-based measures for quantifying incongruence among phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 31:1261-1271.
72. Sela I, Ashkenazy H, Katoh K, Pupko T. 2015. GUIDANCE2: accurate detection of unreliable alignment regions accounting for the uncertainty of multiple parameters. Nucleic Acids Res. 43:W7-W14.
73. Shen XX, Liang D, Feng YJ, Chen MY, Zhang P. 2013. A versatile and highly efficient toolkit including 102 nuclear markers for vertebrate phylogenomics, tested by resolving the higher level relationships of the caudata. Mol Biol Evol. 30:2235-2248.
74. 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.
75. Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312-1313.
76. Tabach Y, et al. 2013. Identification of small RNA pathway genes using patterns of phylogenetic conservation and divergence. Nature 493:694-698.
77. Takahashi K, Nei M. 2000. Efficiencies of fast algorithms of phylogenetic inference under the criteria of maximum parsimony, minimum evolution, and maximum likelihood when a large number of sequences are used. Mol Biol Evol. 17:1251-1258.
78. Teixeira MC, et al. 2014. The YEASTRACT database: an upgraded information system for the analysis of gene and genomic transcription regulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 42:D161-D166.
79. Townsend JP. 2007. Profiling phylogenetic informativeness. Syst Biol. 56:222-231.
80. Tsagkogeorga G, Parker J, Stupka E, Cotton JA, Rossiter SJ. 2013. Phylogenomic analyses elucidate the evolutionary relationships of bats. Curr Biol. 23:2262-2267.
81. Uhlén M, et al. 2015. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 347:1260419-1260427.
82. Wall DP, et al. 2005. Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102:5483-5488.
83. Wang M, et al. 2012. PaxDb, a database of protein abundance averages across all three domains of life. Mol Cell Proteomics. 11:492-500.
84. Wei L, et al. 2014. Analysis of codon usage bias of mitochondrial genome in Bombyx mori and its relation to evolution. BMC Evol Biol. 14:262.
85. Wickett NJ, et al. 2014. Phylotranscriptomic analysis of the origin and early diversification of land plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 111:E4859-E4868.
86. Wickham H. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer:.
87. Wiens JJ, Morrill MC. 2011. Missing data in phylogenetic analysis: reconciling results from simulations and empirical data. Syst Biol. 60:719-731.
88. 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.
89. Yang Z, Goldman N, Friday A. 1994. Comparison of models for nucleotide substitution used in maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol Biol Evol. 11:316-324.
90. Zhang J, Yang JR. 2015. Determinants of the rate of protein sequence evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 16:409-420.
91. Zhang N, Zeng L, Shan H, Ma H. 2012. Highly conserved low-copy nuclear genes as effective markers for phylogenetic analyses in angiosperms. New Phytol. 195:923-937.
92. Zheng G, et al. 2008. ITFP: an integrated platform of mammalian transcription factors. Bioinformatics 24:2416-2417.