42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Gene tree incongruence arising from incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) can reduce the accuracy of concatenation-based estimations of species trees. Although coalescent-based species tree estimation methods can have good accuracy in the presence of ILS, they are sensitive to gene tree estimation error. We propose a pipeline that uses bootstrapping to evaluate whether two genes are likely to have the same tree, then it groups genes into sets using a graph-theoretic optimization and estimates a tree on each subset using concatenation, and finally produces an estimated species tree from these trees using the preferred coalescent-based method. Statistical binning improves the accuracy of MP-EST, a popular coalescent-based method, and we use it to produce the first genome-scale coalescent-based avian tree of life.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Gene Trees in Species Trees

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates.

            Tunicates or urochordates (appendicularians, salps and sea squirts), cephalochordates (lancelets) and vertebrates (including lamprey and hagfish) constitute the three extant groups of chordate animals. Traditionally, cephalochordates are considered as the closest living relatives of vertebrates, with tunicates representing the earliest chordate lineage. This view is mainly justified by overall morphological similarities and an apparently increased complexity in cephalochordates and vertebrates relative to tunicates. Despite their critical importance for understanding the origins of vertebrates, phylogenetic studies of chordate relationships have provided equivocal results. Taking advantage of the genome sequencing of the appendicularian Oikopleura dioica, we assembled a phylogenomic data set of 146 nuclear genes (33,800 unambiguously aligned amino acids) from 14 deuterostomes and 24 other slowly evolving species as an outgroup. Here we show that phylogenetic analyses of this data set provide compelling evidence that tunicates, and not cephalochordates, represent the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Chordate monophyly remains uncertain because cephalochordates, albeit with a non-significant statistical support, surprisingly grouped with echinoderms, a hypothesis that needs to be tested with additional data. This new phylogenetic scheme prompts a reappraisal of both morphological and palaeontological data and has important implications for the interpretation of developmental and genomic studies in which tunicates and cephalochordates are used as model animals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?

              The advent and maturation of algorithms for estimating species trees-phylogenetic trees that allow gene tree heterogeneity and whose tips represent lineages, populations and species, as opposed to genes-represent an exciting confluence of phylogenetics, phylogeography, and population genetics, and ushers in a new generation of concepts and challenges for the molecular systematist. In this essay I argue that to better deal with the large multilocus datasets brought on by phylogenomics, and to better align the fields of phylogeography and phylogenetics, we should embrace the primacy of species trees, not only as a new and useful practical tool for systematics, but also as a long-standing conceptual goal of systematics that, largely due to the lack of appropriate computational tools, has been eclipsed in the past few decades. I suggest that phylogenies as gene trees are a "local optimum" for systematics, and review recent advances that will bring us to the broader optimum inherent in species trees. In addition to adopting new methods of phylogenetic analysis (and ideally reserving the term "phylogeny" for species trees rather than gene trees), the new paradigm suggests shifts in a number of practices, such as sampling data to maximize not only the number of accumulated sites but also the number of independently segregating genes; routinely using coalescent or other models in computer simulations to allow gene tree heterogeneity; and understanding better the role of concatenation in influencing topologies and confidence in phylogenies. By building on the foundation laid by concepts of gene trees and coalescent theory, and by taking cues from recent trends in multilocus phylogeography, molecular systematics stands to be enriched. Many of the challenges and lessons learned for estimating gene trees will carry over to the challenge of estimating species trees, although adopting the species tree paradigm will clarify many issues (such as the nature of polytomies and the star tree paradox), raise conceptually new challenges, or provide new answers to old questions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Science
                Science (New York, N.Y.)
                1095-9203
                0036-8075
                Dec 12 2014
                : 346
                : 6215
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
                [2 ] Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, CNRS, UMR5558, Université Lyon 1, 69622, Villeurbanne, France.
                [3 ] Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Department of Bioengineering and Computer Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA. warnow@illinois.edu.
                Article
                346/6215/1250463
                10.1126/science.1250463
                25504728
                2c16b38e-2db3-477a-a477-38bdda44d41c
                Copyright © 2014, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article