skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Bartoszek, Krzysztof"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract

    Adams and Collyer argue that contemporary multivariate (Gaussian) phylogenetic comparative methods are prone to favouring more complex models of evolution and sometimes rotation invariance can be an issue. Here we dissect the concept of rotation invariance and point out that, depending on the understanding, this can be an issue with any method that relies on numerical instead of analytical estimation approaches. We relate this to the ongoing discussion concerning phylogenetic principal component analysis. Contrary to what Adams and Collyer found, we do not observe a bias against the simpler Brownian motion process in simulations when we use the new, improved, likelihood evaluation algorithm employed by mvSLOUCH, which allows for studying much larger phylogenies and more complex model setups.

     
    more » « less
  2. Beaulieu, Jeremy (Ed.)
    Abstract

    The advent of fast computational algorithms for phylogenetic comparative methods allows for considering multiple hypotheses concerning the co-adaptation of traits and also for studying if it is possible to distinguish between such models based on contemporary species measurements. Here we demonstrate how one can perform a study with multiple competing hypotheses using mvSLOUCH by analyzing two data sets, one concerning feeding styles and oral morphology in ungulates, and the other concerning fruit evolution in Ferula (Apiaceae). We also perform simulations to determine if it is possible to distinguish between various adaptive hypotheses. We find that Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample size has the ability to distinguish between most pairs of considered models. However, in some cases there seems to be bias towards Brownian motion or simpler Ornstein–Uhlenbeck models. We also find that measurement error and forcing the sign of the diagonal of the drift matrix for an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process influences identifiability capabilities. It is a cliché that some models, despite being imperfect, are more useful than others. Nonetheless, having a much larger repertoire of models will surely lead to a better understanding of the natural world, as it will allow for dissecting in what ways they are wrong. [Adaptation; AICc; model selection; multivariate Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process; multivariate phylogenetic comparative methods; mvSLOUCH.]

     
    more » « less
  3. These are the Supplementary Material, R scripts and numerical results accompanying Bartoszek, Fuentes Gonzalez, Mitov, Pienaar, Piwczyński, Puchałka, Spalik and Voje "Model Selection Performance in Phylogenetic Comparative Methods under multivariate Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Models of Trait Evolution". The four data files concern two datasets. Ungulates: measurements of muzzle width, unworn lower third molar crown height, unworn lower third molar crown width and feeding style and their phylogeny; Ferula: measurements of ratio of canals, periderm thickness, wing area, wing thickness,  and fruit mass, and their phylogeny. 
    more » « less
  4. Building the Tree of Life (ToL) is a major challenge of modern biology, requiring advances in cyberinfrastructure, data collection, theory, and more. Here, we argue that phylogenomics stands to benefit by embracing the many heterogeneous genomic signals emerging from the first decade of large-scale phylogenetic analysis spawned by high-throughput sequencing (HTS). Such signals include those most commonly encountered in phylogenomic datasets, such as incomplete lineage sorting, but also those reticulate processes emerging with greater frequency, such as recombination and introgression. Here we focus specifically on how phylogenetic methods can accommodate the heterogeneity incurred by such population genetic processes; we do not discuss phylogenetic methods that ignore such processes, such as concatenation or supermatrix approaches or supertrees. We suggest that methods of data acquisition and the types of markers used in phylogenomics will remain restricted until a posteriori methods of marker choice are made possible with routine whole-genome sequencing of taxa of interest. We discuss limitations and potential extensions of a model supporting innovation in phylogenomics today, the multispecies coalescent model (MSC). Macroevolutionary models that use phylogenies, such as character mapping, often ignore the heterogeneity on which building phylogenies increasingly rely and suggest that assimilating such heterogeneity is an important goal moving forward. Finally, we argue that an integrative cyberinfrastructure linking all steps of the process of building the ToL, from specimen acquisition in the field to publication and tracking of phylogenomic data, as well as a culture that values contributors at each step, are essential for progress.

     
    more » « less