Back

Species Tree Inference under the Multispecies Coalescent on Data with Paralogs is Accurate

Yan, Z.; Du, P.; Hahn, M. W.; Nakhleh, L.

2020-03-24 evolutionary biology
10.1101/498378 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWMany recent phylogenetic methods have focused on accurately inferring species trees when there is gene tree discordance due to incomplete lineage sorting (ILS). For almost all of these methods, and for phylogenetic methods in general, the data for each locus is assumed to consist of orthologous, single-copy sequences. Loci that are present in more than a single copy in any of the studied genomes are excluded from the data. These steps greatly reduce the number of loci available for analysis. The question we seek to answer in this study is: What happens if one runs such species tree inference methods on data where paralogy is present, in addition to or without ILS being present? Through simulation studies and analyses of two large biological data sets, we show that running such methods on data with paralogs can still provide accurate results. We use multiple different methods, some of which are based directly on the multispecies coalescent (MSC) model, and some of which have been proven to be statistically consistent under it. We also treat the paralogous loci in multiple ways: from explicitly denoting them as paralogs, to randomly selecting one copy per species. In all cases the inferred species trees are as accurate as equivalent analyses using single-copy orthologs. Our results have significant implications for the use of ILS-aware phylogenomic analyses, demonstrating that they do not have to be restricted to single-copy loci. This will greatly increase the amount of data that can be used for phylogenetic inference.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.1%
2
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
8.4%
3
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.4%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
6
Journal of Computational Biology
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
9
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
10
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
12
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
19
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
Virus Evolution
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Journal of Molecular Evolution
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 78%
0.6%
24
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
25
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%