Back

Lower statistical support with larger datasets: insights from the Ochrophyta radiation

Di Franco, A.; Baurain, D.; Glockner, G.; Melkonian, M.; Philippe, H.

2021-01-16 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2021.01.14.426536 bioRxiv
Show abstract

It is commonly assumed that increasing the number of characters has the potential to resolving radiations. We studied photosynthetic stramenopiles (Ochrophyta) using alignments of heterogeneous size and origin (6,762 sites for mitochondrion, 21,692 sites for plastid and 209,105 sites for nucleus). While statistical support for the relationships between the six major Ochrophyta lineages increases when comparing the mitochondrion and plastid trees, it decreases in the nuclear tree. Statistical support is not simply related to the dataset size but also to the quantity of phylogenetic signal available at each position and our ability to extract it. Here, we show that proper signal extraction is difficult to attain, as demonstrated by conflicting results obtained when varying taxon sampling. Even though the use of a better fitting model improved signal extraction and reduced the observed conflicts, the plastid dataset provided higher statistical support for the ochrophyte radiation than the larger nucleus dataset. We propose that the higher support observed in the plastid tree is due to an acceleration of the evolutionary rate in one short deep internal branch, implying that more phylogenetic signal per position is available to resolve the Ochrophyta radiation in the plastid than in the nuclear dataset. Our work therefore suggests that, in order to resolve radiations, beyond the obvious use of datasets with more positions, we need to continue developing models of sequence evolution that better extract the phylogenetic signal and design methods to search for genes/characters that contain more signal specifically for short internal branches.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
36.9%
2
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
4
Journal of Molecular Evolution
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
5
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
6
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
7
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.4%
9
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
10
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.8%
12
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
14
American Journal of Botany
41 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
15
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
17
Journal of Systematics and Evolution
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
19
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.7%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%