结合传统方法、增量建树和质量感知支持对 Blattodea 进行系统进化分析。

IF 3.6 1区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Dominic A. Evangelista , Dvorah Nelson , Zuzana Kotyková Varadínová , Michael Kotyk , Nicolas Rousseaux , Tristan Shanahan , Phillippe Grandcolas , Frédéric Legendre
{"title":"结合传统方法、增量建树和质量感知支持对 Blattodea 进行系统进化分析。","authors":"Dominic A. Evangelista ,&nbsp;Dvorah Nelson ,&nbsp;Zuzana Kotyková Varadínová ,&nbsp;Michael Kotyk ,&nbsp;Nicolas Rousseaux ,&nbsp;Tristan Shanahan ,&nbsp;Phillippe Grandcolas ,&nbsp;Frédéric Legendre","doi":"10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite the many advances of the genomic era, there is a persistent problem in assessing the uncertainty of phylogenomic hypotheses. We see this in the recent history of phylogenetics for cockroaches and termites (Blattodea), where huge advances have been made, but there are still major inconsistencies between studies. To address this, we present a phylogenetic analysis of Blattodea that emphasizes identification and quantification of uncertainty. We analyze 1183 gene domains using three methods (multi-species coalescent inference, concatenation, and a supermatrix-supertree hybrid approach) and assess support for controversial relationships while considering data quality. The hybrid approach—here dubbed “tiered phylogenetic inference”—incorporates information about data quality into an incremental tree building framework. Leveraging this method, we are able to identify cases of low or misleading support that would not be possible otherwise, and explore them more thoroughly with follow-up tests. In particular, quality annotations pointed towards nodes with high bootstrap support that later turned out to have large ambiguities, sometimes resulting from low-quality data. We also clarify issues related to some recalcitrant nodes: Anaplectidae’s placement lacks unbiased signal, Ectobiidae s.s. and Anaplectoideini need greater taxon sampling, the deepest relationships among most Blaberidae lack signal. As a result, several previous phylogenetic uncertainties are now closer to being resolved (e.g., African and Malagasy “<em>Rhabdoblatta”</em> spp. are the sister to all other Blaberidae, and Oxyhaloinae is sister to the remaining Blaberidae). Overall, we argue for more approaches to quantifying support that take data quality into account to uncover the nature of recalcitrant nodes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56109,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution","volume":"200 ","pages":"Article 108177"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790324001696/pdfft?md5=73a7050cb65428d10be88be9dfb52c1a&pid=1-s2.0-S1055790324001696-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phylogenomic analyses of Blattodea combining traditional methods, incremental tree-building, and quality-aware support\",\"authors\":\"Dominic A. Evangelista ,&nbsp;Dvorah Nelson ,&nbsp;Zuzana Kotyková Varadínová ,&nbsp;Michael Kotyk ,&nbsp;Nicolas Rousseaux ,&nbsp;Tristan Shanahan ,&nbsp;Phillippe Grandcolas ,&nbsp;Frédéric Legendre\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite the many advances of the genomic era, there is a persistent problem in assessing the uncertainty of phylogenomic hypotheses. We see this in the recent history of phylogenetics for cockroaches and termites (Blattodea), where huge advances have been made, but there are still major inconsistencies between studies. To address this, we present a phylogenetic analysis of Blattodea that emphasizes identification and quantification of uncertainty. We analyze 1183 gene domains using three methods (multi-species coalescent inference, concatenation, and a supermatrix-supertree hybrid approach) and assess support for controversial relationships while considering data quality. The hybrid approach—here dubbed “tiered phylogenetic inference”—incorporates information about data quality into an incremental tree building framework. Leveraging this method, we are able to identify cases of low or misleading support that would not be possible otherwise, and explore them more thoroughly with follow-up tests. In particular, quality annotations pointed towards nodes with high bootstrap support that later turned out to have large ambiguities, sometimes resulting from low-quality data. We also clarify issues related to some recalcitrant nodes: Anaplectidae’s placement lacks unbiased signal, Ectobiidae s.s. and Anaplectoideini need greater taxon sampling, the deepest relationships among most Blaberidae lack signal. As a result, several previous phylogenetic uncertainties are now closer to being resolved (e.g., African and Malagasy “<em>Rhabdoblatta”</em> spp. are the sister to all other Blaberidae, and Oxyhaloinae is sister to the remaining Blaberidae). Overall, we argue for more approaches to quantifying support that take data quality into account to uncover the nature of recalcitrant nodes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution\",\"volume\":\"200 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790324001696/pdfft?md5=73a7050cb65428d10be88be9dfb52c1a&pid=1-s2.0-S1055790324001696-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790324001696\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790324001696","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管基因组时代取得了许多进展,但在评估系统发生学假说的不确定性方面却始终存在问题。我们从最近的蟑螂和白蚁(Blattodea)系统发生学研究中看到了这一点,虽然已经取得了巨大进步,但不同研究之间仍然存在严重的不一致性。为了解决这个问题,我们提出了一种强调识别和量化不确定性的 Blattodea 系统发生学分析方法。我们使用三种方法(多物种聚合推断法、连接法和超级矩阵-超级树混合法)分析了 1183 个基因域,并在考虑数据质量的同时评估了对有争议的关系的支持。这种混合方法被称为 "分层系统发育推断",它将数据质量信息纳入了增量树构建框架。利用这种方法,我们能够识别出支持率低或有误导性的情况,这在其他情况下是不可能实现的,并通过后续测试对其进行更深入的探索。特别是,高质量注释指向了具有高引导支持的节点,但后来发现这些节点具有很大的模糊性,有时是由于低质量数据造成的。我们还澄清了与一些顽固节点相关的问题:Anaplectidae的位置缺乏无偏的信号,Ectobiidae s.s.和Anaplectoideini需要更多的分类群取样,大多数Blaberidae之间最深的关系缺乏信号。因此,以前的一些系统发育不确定性现在更接近于得到解决(例如,非洲和马达加斯加的 "Rhabdoblatta "属是所有其他 Blaberidae 的姊妹,而 Oxyhaloinae 是其余 Blaberidae 的姊妹)。总之,我们主张采用更多考虑数据质量的方法来量化支持度,以揭示顽固节点的本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Phylogenomic analyses of Blattodea combining traditional methods, incremental tree-building, and quality-aware support

Phylogenomic analyses of Blattodea combining traditional methods, incremental tree-building, and quality-aware support

Despite the many advances of the genomic era, there is a persistent problem in assessing the uncertainty of phylogenomic hypotheses. We see this in the recent history of phylogenetics for cockroaches and termites (Blattodea), where huge advances have been made, but there are still major inconsistencies between studies. To address this, we present a phylogenetic analysis of Blattodea that emphasizes identification and quantification of uncertainty. We analyze 1183 gene domains using three methods (multi-species coalescent inference, concatenation, and a supermatrix-supertree hybrid approach) and assess support for controversial relationships while considering data quality. The hybrid approach—here dubbed “tiered phylogenetic inference”—incorporates information about data quality into an incremental tree building framework. Leveraging this method, we are able to identify cases of low or misleading support that would not be possible otherwise, and explore them more thoroughly with follow-up tests. In particular, quality annotations pointed towards nodes with high bootstrap support that later turned out to have large ambiguities, sometimes resulting from low-quality data. We also clarify issues related to some recalcitrant nodes: Anaplectidae’s placement lacks unbiased signal, Ectobiidae s.s. and Anaplectoideini need greater taxon sampling, the deepest relationships among most Blaberidae lack signal. As a result, several previous phylogenetic uncertainties are now closer to being resolved (e.g., African and Malagasy “Rhabdoblatta” spp. are the sister to all other Blaberidae, and Oxyhaloinae is sister to the remaining Blaberidae). Overall, we argue for more approaches to quantifying support that take data quality into account to uncover the nature of recalcitrant nodes.

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
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.30%
发文量
249
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution is dedicated to bringing Darwin''s dream within grasp - to "have fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature." The journal provides a forum for molecular studies that advance our understanding of phylogeny and evolution, further the development of phylogenetically more accurate taxonomic classifications, and ultimately bring a unified classification for all the ramifying lines of life. Phylogeographic studies will be considered for publication if they offer EXCEPTIONAL theoretical or empirical advances.
×
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