Complex Models of Sequence Evolution Improve Fit, but not Gene Tree Discordance, for Tetrapod Mitogenomes.

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Benjamin S Toups, Robert C Thomson, Jeremy M Brown
{"title":"Complex Models of Sequence Evolution Improve Fit, but not Gene Tree Discordance, for Tetrapod Mitogenomes.","authors":"Benjamin S Toups, Robert C Thomson, Jeremy M Brown","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syae056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Variation in gene tree estimates is widely observed in empirical phylogenomic data and is often assumed to be the result of biological processes. However, a recent study using tetrapod mitochondrial genomes to control for biological sources of variation due to their haploid, uniparentally inherited, and non-recombining nature found that levels of discordance among mitochondrial gene trees were comparable to those found in studies that assume only biological sources of variation. Additionally, they found that several of the models of sequence evolution chosen to infer gene trees were doing an inadequate job fitting the sequence data. These results indicated that significant amounts of gene tree discordance in empirical data may be due to poor fit of sequence evolution models, and that more complex and biologically realistic models may be needed. To test how the fit of sequence evolution models relates to gene tree discordance, we analyzed the same mitochondrial datasets as the previous study using two additional, more complex models of sequence evolution that each includes a different biologically realistic aspect of the evolutionary process: a covarion model to incorporate site-specific rate variation across lineages (heterotachy), and a partitioned model to incorporate variable evolutionary patterns by codon position. Our results show that both additional models fit the data better than the models used in the previous study, with the covarion being consistently and strongly preferred as tree size increases. However, even these more preferred models still inferred highly discordant mitochondrial gene trees, thus deepening the mystery around what we label the \"Mito-Phylo Paradox\" and leading us to ask whether the observed variation could, in fact, be biological in nature after all.</p>","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syae056","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Variation in gene tree estimates is widely observed in empirical phylogenomic data and is often assumed to be the result of biological processes. However, a recent study using tetrapod mitochondrial genomes to control for biological sources of variation due to their haploid, uniparentally inherited, and non-recombining nature found that levels of discordance among mitochondrial gene trees were comparable to those found in studies that assume only biological sources of variation. Additionally, they found that several of the models of sequence evolution chosen to infer gene trees were doing an inadequate job fitting the sequence data. These results indicated that significant amounts of gene tree discordance in empirical data may be due to poor fit of sequence evolution models, and that more complex and biologically realistic models may be needed. To test how the fit of sequence evolution models relates to gene tree discordance, we analyzed the same mitochondrial datasets as the previous study using two additional, more complex models of sequence evolution that each includes a different biologically realistic aspect of the evolutionary process: a covarion model to incorporate site-specific rate variation across lineages (heterotachy), and a partitioned model to incorporate variable evolutionary patterns by codon position. Our results show that both additional models fit the data better than the models used in the previous study, with the covarion being consistently and strongly preferred as tree size increases. However, even these more preferred models still inferred highly discordant mitochondrial gene trees, thus deepening the mystery around what we label the "Mito-Phylo Paradox" and leading us to ask whether the observed variation could, in fact, be biological in nature after all.

序列进化的复杂模型改善了四足有丝分裂基因组的拟合度,但没有改善基因树的不一致性。
在经验性的系统发生组数据中,基因树估计值的变异被广泛观察到,并且通常被认为是生物过程的结果。然而,最近一项使用四足动物线粒体基因组来控制生物变异来源的研究发现,线粒体基因树之间的不一致程度与仅假定生物变异来源的研究中发现的不一致程度相当。此外,他们还发现,用于推断基因树的几个序列进化模型与序列数据的拟合程度不够。这些结果表明,经验数据中存在的大量基因树不一致现象可能是由于序列进化模型的拟合效果不佳造成的,因此可能需要更复杂、更符合生物学实际的模型。为了检验序列进化模型的拟合度与基因树不一致性之间的关系,我们使用了两个额外的、更复杂的序列进化模型来分析与前一项研究相同的线粒体数据集,这两个模型分别包含了进化过程中不同的生物学现实方面:一个是科瓦里翁模型(covarion model),它包含了不同世系中特定位点的速率变化(heterotachy);另一个是分区模型(partitioned model),它包含了不同密码子位置的进化模式。我们的研究结果表明,这两个额外的模型都比之前研究中使用的模型更适合数据,随着树规模的增加,共线性模型一直是首选。然而,即使是这些更受青睐的模型,仍然推断出了高度不和谐的线粒体基因树,从而加深了我们所称的 "Mito-Phylo 悖论 "的神秘性,并使我们提出了这样一个问题:所观察到的变异实际上是否具有生物学性质?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Biology
Systematic Biology 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Biology is the bimonthly journal of the Society of Systematic Biologists. Papers for the journal are original contributions to the theory, principles, and methods of systematics as well as phylogeny, evolution, morphology, biogeography, paleontology, genetics, and the classification of all living things. A Points of View section offers a forum for discussion, while book reviews and announcements of general interest are also featured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信