Contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes

Nature Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 1, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Shen, Xing Xing ^a   Hittinger, Chris Todd ^b   Rokas, Antonis ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021804124     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2397334X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0126     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Wickett, N. J. et al. Phylotranscriptomic analysis of the origin and early diversification of land plants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4859-E4868 (2014).
2. Misof, B. et al. Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 346, 763-767 (2014).
3. Jarvis, E. D. et al. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science 346, 1320-1331 (2014).
4. Shen, X.-X. et al. Reconstructing the backbone of the saccharomycotina yeast phylogeny using genome-scale data. Genes Genom. Genet. 6, 3927-3939 (2016).
5. Rokas, A., Williams, B. L., King, N. & Carroll, S. B. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425, 798-804 (2003).
6. Rokas, A. & Carroll, S. B. Bushes in the tree of life. PLoS Biol. 4, e352 (2006).
7. Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H. & Philippe, H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 361-375 (2005).
8. Philippe, H., Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H. & Lartillot, N. Phylogenomics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 541-562 (2005).
9. Philippe, H. et al. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9, e1000602 (2011).
10. Riley, R. et al. Comparative genomics of biotechnologically important yeasts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9882-9887 (2016).
11. Ryan, J. F. et al. The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution. Science 342, 1242592 (2013).
12. Pisani, D. et al. Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15402-15407 (2015).
13. Nakhleh, L. Computational approaches to species phylogeny inference and gene tree reconciliation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 719-728 (2013).
14. Degnan, J. H. & Rosenberg, N. A. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 332-340 (2009).
15. Phillips, M. J., Delsuc, F. & Penny, D. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1455-1458 (2004).
16. Hess, J. & Goldman, N. Addressing inter-gene heterogeneity in maximum likelihood phylogenomic analysis: yeasts revisited. PLoS ONE 6, e22783 (2011).
17. Castoe, T. A. et al. Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8986-8991 (2009).
18. Felsenstein, J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17, 368-376 (1981).
19. Shimodaira, H. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst. Biol. 51, 492-508 (2002).
20. Shimodaira, H. & Hasegawa, M. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17, 1246-1247 (2001).
21. Shen, X.-X., Salichos, L. & Rokas, A. A genome-scale investigation of how sequence, function, and tree-based gene properties influence phylogenetic inference. Genome Biol. Evol. 8, 2565-2580 (2016).
22. Rambaut, A. & Grassly, N. C. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13, 235-238 (1997).
23. Rannala, B. & Yang, Z. Bayes estimation of species divergence times and ancestral population sizes using DNA sequences from multiple loci. Genetics 164, 1645-1656 (2003).
24. Edwards, S. V. Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63, 1-19 (2009).
25. Mirarab, S., Bayzid, M. S., Boussau, B. & Warnow, T. Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree. Science 346, 1250463 (2014).
26. Springer, M. S. & Gatesy, J. The gene tree delusion. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 94, 1-33 (2016).
27. Liu, L., Xi, Z. & Davis, C. C. Coalescent methods are robust to the simultaneous effects of long branches and incomplete lineage sorting. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 791-805 (2015).
28. Shavit Grievink, L., Penny, D. & Holland, B. R. Missing data and influential sites: choice of sites for phylogenetic analysis can be as important as taxon sampling and model choice. Genome Biol. Evol. 5, 681-687 (2013).
29. Whelan, N., Kocot, K. M., Moroz, L. L. & Halanych, K. M. Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5773-5778 (2015).
30. Borowiec, M. L., Lee, E. K., Chiu, J. C. & Plachetzki, D. C. Extracting phylogenetic signal and accounting for bias in whole-genome data sets supports the Ctenophora as sister to remaining Metazoa. BMC Genomics 16, 987 (2015).
31. Yang, Z. Likelihood ratio tests for detecting positive selection and application to primate lysozyme evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 568-573 (1998).
32. Foote, A. D. et al. Convergent evolution of the genomes of marine mammals. Nat. Genet. 47, 272-275 (2015).
33. Stern, D. L. The genetic causes of convergent evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 751-764 (2013).
34. Hahn, M. W. & Nakhleh, L. Irrational exuberance for resolved species trees. Evolution 70, 7-17 (2016).
35. Li, Y., Liu, Z., Shi, P. & Zhang, J. The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales. Curr. Biol. 20, R55-R56 (2010).
36. Rokas, A. & Carroll, S. B. More genes or more taxa? The relative contribution of gene number and taxon number to phylogenetic accuracy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1337-1344 (2005).
37. Heath, T. A., Hedtke, S. M. & Hillis, D. M. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. J. Syst. Evol. 46, 239-257 (2008).
38. Goldstein, R. A., Pollard, S. T., Shah, S. D. & Pollock, D. D. Nonadaptive amino acid convergence rates decrease over time. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 1373-1381 (2015).
39. Salichos, L. & Rokas, A. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 497, 327-331 (2013).
40. Salichos, L., Stamatakis, A. & Rokas, A. Novel information theory-based measures for quantifying incongruence among phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1261-1271 (2014).
41. Kobert, K., Salichos, L., Rokas, A. & Stamatakis, A. Computing the internode certainty and related measures from partial gene trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 1606-1617 (2016).
42. Tarver, J. E. et al. The interrelationships of placental mammals and the limits of phylogenetic inference. Genome Biol. Evol. 8, 330-344 (2016).
43. Takezaki, N. & Nishihara, H. Resolving the phylogenetic position of coelacanth: the closest relative is not always the most appropriate outgroup. Genome Biol. Evol. 8, 1208-1221 (2016).
44. Kimball, R. T., Wang, N., Heimer-McGinn, V., Ferguson, C. & Braun, E. L. Identifying localized biases in large datasets: a case study using the avian tree of life. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 69, 1021-1032 (2013).
45. Gatesy, J. et al. Resolution of a concatenation/coalescence kerfuffle: partitioned coalescence support and a robust family-level tree for Mammalia. Cladistics http://doi. org/10. 1111/cla. 12170 (2016).
46. Bar-Hen, A., Mariadassou, M., Poursat, M.-A. & Vandenkoornhuyse, P. Influence function for robust phylogenetic reconstructions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 869-873 (2008).
47. Brown, J. M. & Thomson, R. C. Bayes factors unmask highly variable information content, bias, and extreme influence in phylogenomic analyses. Syst. Biol. http://doi. org/10. 1093/sysbio/syw101 (2016).
48. Mossel, E & Steel, M. in Mathematics of Evolution and Phylogeny (ed. Gascuel, O.) 384-412 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
49. Whitfield, J. B. & Lockhart, P. J. Deciphering ancient rapid radiations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 258-265 (2007).
50. Chen, M.-Y., Liang, D. & Zhang, P. Selecting question-specific genes to reduce incongruence in phylogenomics: a case study of jawed vertebrate backbone phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 64, 1104-1120 (2015).
51. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312-1313 (2014).
52. Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268-274 (2015).
53. Ihaka, R. & Gentleman, R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 5, 299-314 (1996).
54. Stamatakis, A., Hoover, P. & Rougemont, J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst. Biol. 57, 758-771 (2008).
55. Mirarab, S. & Warnow, T. ASTRAL-II: coalescent-based species tree estimation with many hundreds of taxa and thousands of genes. Bioinformatics 31, i44-i52 (2015).
56. Dunn, C. W. et al. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452, 745-749 (2008).
57. Hejnol, A. et al. Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 4261-4270 (2009).
58. Moroz, L. L. et al. The ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems. Nature 510, 109-114 (2014).
59. Philippe, H. et al. Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships. Curr. Biol. 19, 706-712 (2009).
60. Pick, K. S. et al. Improved phylogenomic taxon sampling noticeably affects nonbilaterian relationships. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 1983-1987 (2010).
61. Nosenko, T. et al. Deep metazoan phylogeny: when different genes tell different stories. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 67, 223-233 (2013).