An official website of the United States government
Abstract Just exactly which tree(s) should we assume when testing evolutionary hypotheses? This question has plagued comparative biologists for decades. Though all phylogenetic comparative methods require input trees, we seldom know with certainty whether even a perfectly estimated tree (if this is possible in practice) is appropriate for our studied traits. Yet, we also know that phylogenetic conflict is ubiquitous in modern comparative biology, and we are still learning about its dangers when testing evolutionary hypotheses. Here, we investigate the consequences of tree-trait mismatch for phylogenetic regression in the presence of gene tree–species tree conflict. Our simulation experiments reveal excessively high false positive rates for mismatched models with both small and large trees, simple and complex traits, and known and estimated phylogenies. In some cases, we find evidence of a directionality of error: assuming a species tree for traits that evolved according to a gene tree sometimes fares worse than the opposite. We also explored the impacts of tree choice using an expansive, cross-species gene expression dataset as an arguably “best-case” scenario in which one may have a better chance of matching tree with trait. Offering a potential path forward, we found promise in the application of a robust estimator as a potential, albeit imperfect, solution to some issues raised by tree mismatch. Collectively, our results emphasize the importance of careful study design for comparative methods, highlighting the need to fully appreciate the role of accurate and thoughtful phylogenetic modeling.
more »
« less
Likelihood-Based Tests of Species Tree Hypotheses
Abstract Likelihood-based tests of phylogenetic trees are a foundation of modern systematics. Over the past decade, an enormous wealth and diversity of model-based approaches have been developed for phylogenetic inference of both gene trees and species trees. However, while many techniques exist for conducting formal likelihood-based tests of gene trees, such frameworks are comparatively underdeveloped and underutilized for testing species tree hypotheses. To date, widely used tests of tree topology are designed to assess the fit of classical models of molecular sequence data and individual gene trees and thus are not readily applicable to the problem of species tree inference. To address this issue, we derive several analogous likelihood-based approaches for testing topologies using modern species tree models and heuristic algorithms that use gene tree topologies as input for maximum likelihood estimation under the multispecies coalescent. For the purpose of comparing support for species trees, these tests leverage the statistical procedures of their original gene tree-based counterparts that have an extended history for testing phylogenetic hypotheses at a single locus. We discuss and demonstrate a number of applications, limitations, and important considerations of these tests using simulated and empirical phylogenomic data sets that include both bifurcating topologies and reticulate network models of species relationships. Finally, we introduce the open-source R package SpeciesTopoTestR (SpeciesTopology Tests in R) that includes a suite of functions for conducting formal likelihood-based tests of species topologies given a set of input gene tree topologies.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2001063
- PAR ID:
- 10451209
- Editor(s):
- Satta, Yoko
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Volume:
- 40
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 0737-4038
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Hundreds or thousands of loci are now routinely used in modern phylogenomic studies. Concatenation approaches to tree inference assume that there is a single topology for the entire dataset, but different loci may have different evolutionary histories due to incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), introgression, and/or horizontal gene transfer; even single loci may not be treelike due to recombination. To overcome this shortcoming, we introduce an implementation of a multi-tree mixture model that we call mixtures across sites and trees (MAST). This model extends a prior implementation by Boussau et al. (2009) by allowing users to estimate the weight of each of a set of pre-specified bifurcating trees in a single alignment. The MAST model allows each tree to have its own weight, topology, branch lengths, substitution model, nucleotide or amino acid frequencies, and model of rate heterogeneity across sites. We implemented the MAST model in a maximum-likelihood framework in the popular phylogenetic software, IQ-TREE. Simulations show that we can accurately recover the true model parameters, including branch lengths and tree weights for a given set of tree topologies, under a wide range of biologically realistic scenarios. We also show that we can use standard statistical inference approaches to reject a single-tree model when data are simulated under multiple trees (and vice versa). We applied the MAST model to multiple primate datasets and found that it can recover the signal of ILS in the Great Apes, as well as the asymmetry in minor trees caused by introgression among several macaque species. When applied to a dataset of 4 Platyrrhine species for which standard concatenated maximum likelihood (ML) and gene tree approaches disagree, we observe that MAST gives the highest weight (i.e., the largest proportion of sites) to the tree also supported by gene tree approaches. These results suggest that the MAST model is able to analyze a concatenated alignment using ML while avoiding some of the biases that come with assuming there is only a single tree. We discuss how the MAST model can be extended in the future.more » « less
-
Polyploidy, or whole-genome duplication, is expected to confound the inference of species trees with phyloge- netic methods for two reasons. First, the presence of retained duplicated genes requires the reconciliation of the inferred gene trees to a proposed species tree. Second, even if the analyses are restricted to shared single copy genes, the occurrence of reciprocal gene loss, where the surviving genes in different species are paralogs from the polyploidy rather than orthologs, will mean that such genes will not have evolved under the corresponding species tree and may not produce gene trees that allow inference of that species tree. Here we analyze three different ancient polyploidy events, using synteny-based inferences of orthology and paralogy to infer gene trees from nearly 17,000 sets of homologous genes. We find that the simple use of single copy genes from polyploid organisms provides reasonably robust phylogenetic signals, despite the presence of reciprocal gene losses. Such gene trees are also most often in accord with the inferred species relationships inferred from maximum likelihood models of gene loss after polyploidy: a completely distinct phylogenetic signal present in these genomes. As seen in other studies, however, we find that methods for inferring phylogenetic confidence yield high support values even in cases where the underlying data suggest meaningful conflict in the phylogenetic signals.more » « less
-
Phylogenetic comparative methods have long been a mainstay of evolutionary biology, allowing for the study of trait evolution across species while accounting for their common ancestry. These analyses typically assume a single, bifurcating phylogenetic tree describing the shared history among species. However, modern phylogenomic analyses have shown that genomes are often composed of mosaic histories that can disagree both with the species tree and with each other—so-called discordant gene trees. These gene trees describe shared histories that are not captured by the species tree, and therefore that are unaccounted for in classic comparative approaches. The application of standard comparative methods to species histories containing discordance leads to incorrect inferences about the timing, direction, and rate of evolution. Here, we develop two approaches for incorporating gene tree histories into comparative methods: one that constructs an updated phylogenetic variance–covariance matrix from gene trees, and another that applies Felsenstein's pruning algorithm over a set of gene trees to calculate trait histories and likelihoods. Using simulation, we demonstrate that our approaches generate much more accurate estimates of tree-wide rates of trait evolution than standard methods. We apply our methods to two clades of the wild tomato genusSolanumwith varying rates of discordance, demonstrating the contribution of gene tree discordance to variation in a set of floral traits. Our approaches have the potential to be applied to a broad range of classic inference problems in phylogenetics, including ancestral state reconstruction and the inference of lineage-specific rate shifts.more » « less
-
Abstract MotivationPhylogenomics faces a dilemma: on the one hand, most accurate species and gene tree estimation methods are those that co-estimate them; on the other hand, these co-estimation methods do not scale to moderately large numbers of species. The summary-based methods, which first infer gene trees independently and then combine them, are much more scalable but are prone to gene tree estimation error, which is inevitable when inferring trees from limited-length data. Gene tree estimation error is not just random noise and can create biases such as long-branch attraction. ResultsWe introduce a scalable likelihood-based approach to co-estimation under the multi-species coalescent model. The method, called quartet co-estimation (QuCo), takes as input independently inferred distributions over gene trees and computes the most likely species tree topology and internal branch length for each quartet, marginalizing over gene tree topologies and ignoring branch lengths by making several simplifying assumptions. It then updates the gene tree posterior probabilities based on the species tree. The focus on gene tree topologies and the heuristic division to quartets enables fast likelihood calculations. We benchmark our method with extensive simulations for quartet trees in zones known to produce biased species trees and further with larger trees. We also run QuCo on a biological dataset of bees. Our results show better accuracy than the summary-based approach ASTRAL run on estimated gene trees. Availability and implementationQuCo is available on https://github.com/maryamrabiee/quco. Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msad159
