Michael T. W. McKibben, Geoffrey Finch, Michael S. Barker
{"title":"物种树拓扑结构影响整个被子植物系统发育过程中古老的全基因组复制的推断。","authors":"Michael T. W. McKibben, Geoffrey Finch, Michael S. Barker","doi":"10.1002/ajb2.16378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Premise</h3>\n \n <p>The history of angiosperms is marked by repeated rounds of ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs). Here we used state-of-the-art methods to provide an up-to-date view of the distribution of WGDs in the history of angiosperms that considers both uncertainty introduced by different WGD inference methods and different underlying species-tree hypotheses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used the distribution synonymous divergences (<i>K</i><sub>s</sub>) of paralogs and orthologs from transcriptomic and genomic data to infer and place WGDs across two hypothesized angiosperm phylogenies. We further tested these WGD hypotheses with syntenic inferences and Bayesian models of duplicate gene gain and loss.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The predicted number of WGDs in the history of angiosperms (~170) based on the current taxon sampling is largely similar across different inference methods, but varies in the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny. <i>K</i><sub>s</sub>-based methods often yield alternative hypothesized WGD placements due to variation in substitution rates among lineages. Phylogenetic models of duplicate gene gain and loss are more robust to topological variation. However, errors in species-tree inference can still produce spurious WGD hypotheses, regardless of method used.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Here we showed that different WGD inference methods largely agree on an average of 3.5 WGD in the history of individual angiosperm species. However, the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny is subject to the WGD inference method and tree topology. As researchers continue to test hypotheses regarding the impacts ancient WGDs have on angiosperm evolution, it is important to consider the uncertainty of the phylogeny as well as WGD inference methods.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7691,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Botany","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Species-tree topology impacts the inference of ancient whole-genome duplications across the angiosperm phylogeny\",\"authors\":\"Michael T. W. McKibben, Geoffrey Finch, Michael S. Barker\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajb2.16378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Premise</h3>\\n \\n <p>The history of angiosperms is marked by repeated rounds of ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs). Here we used state-of-the-art methods to provide an up-to-date view of the distribution of WGDs in the history of angiosperms that considers both uncertainty introduced by different WGD inference methods and different underlying species-tree hypotheses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We used the distribution synonymous divergences (<i>K</i><sub>s</sub>) of paralogs and orthologs from transcriptomic and genomic data to infer and place WGDs across two hypothesized angiosperm phylogenies. We further tested these WGD hypotheses with syntenic inferences and Bayesian models of duplicate gene gain and loss.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The predicted number of WGDs in the history of angiosperms (~170) based on the current taxon sampling is largely similar across different inference methods, but varies in the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny. <i>K</i><sub>s</sub>-based methods often yield alternative hypothesized WGD placements due to variation in substitution rates among lineages. Phylogenetic models of duplicate gene gain and loss are more robust to topological variation. However, errors in species-tree inference can still produce spurious WGD hypotheses, regardless of method used.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Here we showed that different WGD inference methods largely agree on an average of 3.5 WGD in the history of individual angiosperm species. However, the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny is subject to the WGD inference method and tree topology. As researchers continue to test hypotheses regarding the impacts ancient WGDs have on angiosperm evolution, it is important to consider the uncertainty of the phylogeny as well as WGD inference methods.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Botany\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Botany\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.16378\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PLANT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Botany","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.16378","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Species-tree topology impacts the inference of ancient whole-genome duplications across the angiosperm phylogeny
Premise
The history of angiosperms is marked by repeated rounds of ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs). Here we used state-of-the-art methods to provide an up-to-date view of the distribution of WGDs in the history of angiosperms that considers both uncertainty introduced by different WGD inference methods and different underlying species-tree hypotheses.
Methods
We used the distribution synonymous divergences (Ks) of paralogs and orthologs from transcriptomic and genomic data to infer and place WGDs across two hypothesized angiosperm phylogenies. We further tested these WGD hypotheses with syntenic inferences and Bayesian models of duplicate gene gain and loss.
Results
The predicted number of WGDs in the history of angiosperms (~170) based on the current taxon sampling is largely similar across different inference methods, but varies in the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny. Ks-based methods often yield alternative hypothesized WGD placements due to variation in substitution rates among lineages. Phylogenetic models of duplicate gene gain and loss are more robust to topological variation. However, errors in species-tree inference can still produce spurious WGD hypotheses, regardless of method used.
Conclusions
Here we showed that different WGD inference methods largely agree on an average of 3.5 WGD in the history of individual angiosperm species. However, the precise placement of WGDs on the phylogeny is subject to the WGD inference method and tree topology. As researchers continue to test hypotheses regarding the impacts ancient WGDs have on angiosperm evolution, it is important to consider the uncertainty of the phylogeny as well as WGD inference methods.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Botany (AJB), the flagship journal of the Botanical Society of America (BSA), publishes peer-reviewed, innovative, significant research of interest to a wide audience of plant scientists in all areas of plant biology (structure, function, development, diversity, genetics, evolution, systematics), all levels of organization (molecular to ecosystem), and all plant groups and allied organisms (cyanobacteria, algae, fungi, and lichens). AJB requires authors to frame their research questions and discuss their results in terms of major questions of plant biology. In general, papers that are too narrowly focused, purely descriptive, natural history, broad surveys, or that contain only preliminary data will not be considered.