Search for: All records

Phylogenetic estimation is, and has always been, a complex endeavor. Estimating a phylogenetic tree involves evaluating many possible solutions and possible evolutionary histories that could explain a set of observed data, typically by using a model of evolution. Modern statistical methods involve not just the estimation of a tree, but also solutions to more complex models involving fossil record information and other data sources. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is a leading method for approximating the posterior distribution of parameters in a mathematical model. It is deployed in all Bayesian phylogenetic tree estimation software. While many researchers use MCMC in phylogenetic analyses, interpreting results and diagnosing problems with MCMC remain vexing issues to many biologists. In this manuscript, we will offer an overview of how MCMC is used in Bayesian phylogenetic inference, with a particular emphasis on complex hierarchical models, such as the fossilized birth-death (FBD) model. We will discuss strategies to diagnose common MCMC problems and troubleshoot difficult analyses, in particular convergence issues. We will show how the study design, the choice of models and priors, but also technical features of the inference tools themselves can all be adjusted to obtain the best results. Finally, we will also discuss the unique challenges created by the incorporation of fossil information in phylogenetic inference, and present tips to address them. 

Phylogenetic trees establish a historical context for the study of organismal form and function. Most phylogenetic trees are estimated using a model of evolution. For molecular data, modeling evolution is often based on biochemical observations about changes between character states. For example, there are four nucleotides, and we can make assumptions about the probability of transitions between them. By contrast, for morphological characters, we may not know \textit{a priori} how many characters states there are per character, as both extant sampling and the fossil record may be highly incomplete, which leads to an observer bias. For a given character, the state space may be larger than what has been observed in the sample of taxa collected by the researcher. In this case, how many evolutionary rates are needed to even describe transitions between morphological character states may not be clear, potentially leading to model misspecification. To explore the impact of this model misspecification, we simulated character data with varying numbers of character states per character. We then used the data to estimate phylogenetic trees using models of evolution with the correct number of character states and an incorrect number of character states. The results of this study indicate that this observer bias may lead to phylogenetic error, particularly in the branch lengths of trees. If the state space is wrongly assumed to be too large, then we underestimate the branch lengths, and the opposite occurs when the state space is wrongly assumed to be too small.