Back

Substitution rate variation, not hidden paralogy, drives false hybridization signal in phylogenetic network inference

Li, B.; Ane, C.

2026-05-18 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.05.11.723986 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Phylogenetic network inference methods are increasingly used to detect hybridization and gene flow from genomic data, but their robustness to common sources of model violation remains poorly characterized. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the effects of hidden paralogy and substitution rate variation on two widely used network inference methods: find_graphs from ADMIXTOOLS 2 and SNaQ. Using an eight-taxon species tree calibrated from an empirical reptile phylogeny, we simulated data under various levels of hidden paralogy (from none to strong) and three levels of rate variation (none, gene-specific, and lineage-specific). We found that hidden paralogy had limited impact on network inference under the conditions examined: both network methods correctly favored a tree without reticulation, and ASTRAL recovered the correct species tree every time. In contrast, lineage-specific rates severely biased find_graphs, inflating worst f-statistic residuals well beyond the standard acceptance threshold. SNaQ correctly selected a tree model almost always across all conditions, though its network with h = 1 reticulation displayed the true species tree with a lower probability under lineage-specific rates. We also show that the standard worst residuals threshold of 3 for find_graphs produces inflated type I error even without rate variation, and we recommend empirical calibration of this threshold within each study system.

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%
33.6%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
15.0%
3
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 33%
2.4%
6
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
7
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
8
Journal of Systematics and Evolution
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
10
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
11
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
12
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
14
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 43%
0.8%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.8%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 68%
0.7%
18
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
19
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
20
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
21
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
22
Journal of Computational Biology
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
23
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
24
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.5%
25
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%