Back

Impact of Partition Models on Phylogenetic Inference and Divergence Times of Lampyridae from Mitochondrial Genomes

Hoehna, S.; Du, H.; Catalan, A.

2025-08-23 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2025.08.19.671050 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mitochondrial genomes are frequently used for phylogenetic inference due to their availability and cost-efficient sequencing. In most mitogenomic phylogenetic analyses, only the two ribosomal RNA and 13 protein coding genes are used. For such multi-locus datasets it has long been established that appropriate data partition models, e.g., partitioning by gene type and/or codon position, are necessary for robust phylogenetic inference. While most studies focused on the impact of partition models on the tree topology, little is known about the impact on divergence time estimation. Furthermore, although modeling among site rate variation within a partition is common practice, the extent of substitution rate variation among partitions is less explored. Here we study the impact of four partition model strategies: (i) no subdivision of the data (uniform), (ii) partitioning by gene, (iii) partitioning by codon position, and (iv) partitioning by both gene and codon position (combined). We explore the impact of partition models on divergence time estimation in fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). To this end, we sequenced mitochondrial genomes from 22 firefly species from Europe and Central America and combined these with 82 published mitochondrial genomes. Our results represent the most comprehensive time-calibrated phylogeny of fireflies to day. While the partition models had an impact on the inferred tree topology, the divergence times were almost not affected. Furthermore, we observed up to 3-fold substitution rate variation across genes and additionally more than to 10-fold substitution rate variation across codon positions. Our study gives insights into best practices of performing partitioned-data time-calibrated phylogenetic inference from mitochondrial genomes and multi-locus datasets in general.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.1%
2
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
3
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
6
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
7
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
9
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
11
Systematic Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
13
Journal of Systematics and Evolution
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Journal of Computational Biology
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Infection, Genetics and Evolution
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
17
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
19
Journal of Molecular Evolution
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
20
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
26
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.5%