用于系统树拓扑推断的恒定速率出生-死亡先验的极限。

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Mark P Khurana, Neil Scheidwasser-Clow, Matthew J Penn, Samir Bhatt, David A Duchêne
{"title":"用于系统树拓扑推断的恒定速率出生-死亡先验的极限。","authors":"Mark P Khurana, Neil Scheidwasser-Clow, Matthew J Penn, Samir Bhatt, David A Duchêne","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syad075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Birth-death models are stochastic processes describing speciation and extinction through time and across taxa and are widely used in biology for inference of evolutionary timescales. Previous research has highlighted how the expected trees under the constant-rate birth-death (crBD) model tend to differ from empirical trees, for example, with respect to the amount of phylogenetic imbalance. However, our understanding of how trees differ between the crBD model and the signal in empirical data remains incomplete. In this Point of View, we aim to expose the degree to which the crBD model differs from empirically inferred phylogenies and test the limits of the model in practice. Using a wide range of topology indices to compare crBD expectations against a comprehensive dataset of 1189 empirically estimated trees, we confirm that crBD model trees frequently differ topologically compared with empirical trees. To place this in the context of standard practice in the field, we conducted a meta-analysis for a subset of the empirical studies. When comparing studies that used Bayesian methods and crBD priors with those that used other non-crBD priors and non-Bayesian methods (i.e., maximum likelihood methods), we do not find any significant differences in tree topology inferences. To scrutinize this finding for the case of highly imbalanced trees, we selected the 100 trees with the greatest imbalance from our dataset, simulated sequence data for these tree topologies under various evolutionary rates, and re-inferred the trees under maximum likelihood and using the crBD model in a Bayesian setting. We find that when the substitution rate is low, the crBD prior results in overly balanced trees, but the tendency is negligible when substitution rates are sufficiently high. Overall, our findings demonstrate the general robustness of crBD priors across a broad range of phylogenetic inference scenarios but also highlight that empirically observed phylogenetic imbalance is highly improbable under the crBD model, leading to systematic bias in data sets with limited information content.</p>","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":" ","pages":"235-246"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129600/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Limits of the Constant-rate Birth-Death Prior for Phylogenetic Tree Topology Inference.\",\"authors\":\"Mark P Khurana, Neil Scheidwasser-Clow, Matthew J Penn, Samir Bhatt, David A Duchêne\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sysbio/syad075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Birth-death models are stochastic processes describing speciation and extinction through time and across taxa and are widely used in biology for inference of evolutionary timescales. Previous research has highlighted how the expected trees under the constant-rate birth-death (crBD) model tend to differ from empirical trees, for example, with respect to the amount of phylogenetic imbalance. However, our understanding of how trees differ between the crBD model and the signal in empirical data remains incomplete. In this Point of View, we aim to expose the degree to which the crBD model differs from empirically inferred phylogenies and test the limits of the model in practice. Using a wide range of topology indices to compare crBD expectations against a comprehensive dataset of 1189 empirically estimated trees, we confirm that crBD model trees frequently differ topologically compared with empirical trees. To place this in the context of standard practice in the field, we conducted a meta-analysis for a subset of the empirical studies. When comparing studies that used Bayesian methods and crBD priors with those that used other non-crBD priors and non-Bayesian methods (i.e., maximum likelihood methods), we do not find any significant differences in tree topology inferences. To scrutinize this finding for the case of highly imbalanced trees, we selected the 100 trees with the greatest imbalance from our dataset, simulated sequence data for these tree topologies under various evolutionary rates, and re-inferred the trees under maximum likelihood and using the crBD model in a Bayesian setting. We find that when the substitution rate is low, the crBD prior results in overly balanced trees, but the tendency is negligible when substitution rates are sufficiently high. Overall, our findings demonstrate the general robustness of crBD priors across a broad range of phylogenetic inference scenarios but also highlight that empirically observed phylogenetic imbalance is highly improbable under the crBD model, leading to systematic bias in data sets with limited information content.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"235-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129600/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syad075\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syad075","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

摘要

出生-死亡模型是一种随机过程,用于描述物种在不同时期和不同类群间的分化和灭绝,在生物学中被广泛用于推断进化的时间尺度。以往的研究强调了恒定速率出生-死亡(crBD)模型下的预期树与经验树之间的差异,例如在系统发育不平衡的程度方面。然而,我们对恒定速率出生-死亡(crBD)模型下的树木与经验数据中的信号之间有何差异的理解仍然不全面。在本《观点》中,我们旨在揭示 crBD 模型与经验推断的系统发生之间的差异程度,并测试该模型在实践中的局限性。我们使用了大量拓扑指数,将 crBD 期望值与一个包含 1189 棵经验估计树的综合数据集进行比较,结果证实,与经验树相比,crBD 模型树在拓扑上经常存在差异。为了将这一点与该领域的标准实践相结合,我们对部分经验研究进行了荟萃分析。在比较使用贝叶斯方法和crBD先验的研究与使用其他非crBD先验和非贝叶斯方法(即最大似然法)的研究时,我们没有发现树拓扑推断的显著差异。为了仔细研究高度不平衡树的这一发现,我们从数据集中选取了 100 棵不平衡度最大的树,模拟了这些树拓扑在不同进化速率下的序列数据,并根据最大似然法和贝叶斯环境下的 crBD 模型对这些树进行了重新推断。我们发现,当替代率较低时,crBD 先验会导致树过于平衡,但当替代率足够高时,这种趋势就可以忽略不计了。总之,我们的研究结果表明,crBD 先验在广泛的系统发育推断情景中具有普遍的稳健性,但同时也强调,在 crBD 模型下,经验观察到的系统发育不平衡是非常不可能的,这会导致信息含量有限的数据集出现系统性偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Limits of the Constant-rate Birth-Death Prior for Phylogenetic Tree Topology Inference.

Birth-death models are stochastic processes describing speciation and extinction through time and across taxa and are widely used in biology for inference of evolutionary timescales. Previous research has highlighted how the expected trees under the constant-rate birth-death (crBD) model tend to differ from empirical trees, for example, with respect to the amount of phylogenetic imbalance. However, our understanding of how trees differ between the crBD model and the signal in empirical data remains incomplete. In this Point of View, we aim to expose the degree to which the crBD model differs from empirically inferred phylogenies and test the limits of the model in practice. Using a wide range of topology indices to compare crBD expectations against a comprehensive dataset of 1189 empirically estimated trees, we confirm that crBD model trees frequently differ topologically compared with empirical trees. To place this in the context of standard practice in the field, we conducted a meta-analysis for a subset of the empirical studies. When comparing studies that used Bayesian methods and crBD priors with those that used other non-crBD priors and non-Bayesian methods (i.e., maximum likelihood methods), we do not find any significant differences in tree topology inferences. To scrutinize this finding for the case of highly imbalanced trees, we selected the 100 trees with the greatest imbalance from our dataset, simulated sequence data for these tree topologies under various evolutionary rates, and re-inferred the trees under maximum likelihood and using the crBD model in a Bayesian setting. We find that when the substitution rate is low, the crBD prior results in overly balanced trees, but the tendency is negligible when substitution rates are sufficiently high. Overall, our findings demonstrate the general robustness of crBD priors across a broad range of phylogenetic inference scenarios but also highlight that empirically observed phylogenetic imbalance is highly improbable under the crBD model, leading to systematic bias in data sets with limited information content.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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