Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root
Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multigene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any dat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Systematic biology 2009-04, Vol.58 (2), p.257-270 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 270 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 257 |
container_title | Systematic biology |
container_volume | 58 |
creator | Roberts, Trina E. Sargis, Eric J. Olson, Link E. |
description | Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multigene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any data set, can make it difficult to specify a model of evolution. In addition, conflict among loci can be the result of real differences in evolutionary process or of stochastic variance and errors in reconstruction. We used 6 presumably unlinked nuclear loci to investigate relationships within the mammalian family Tupaiidae (Scandentia), containing all but one of the extant tupaiid genera. We used a phylogenetic mixture model to analyze the concatenated data and compared this with results using partitioned models. We found that more complex models were not necessarily preferred under tests using Bayes factors and that model complexity affected both tree length and parameter variance. We also compared the results of single-gene and multigene analyses and used splits networks to analyze the source and degree of conflict among genes. Networks can show specific relationships that are inconsistent with each other; these conflicting and minority relationships, which are implicitly ignored or collapsed by traditional consensus methods, can be useful in identifying the underlying causes of topological uncertainty. In our data, conflict is concentrated around particular relationships, not widespread throughout the tree. This pattern is further clarified by considering conflict surrounding the root separately from conflict within the ingroup. Uncertainty in rooting may be because of the apparent evolutionary distance separating these genera and our outgroup, the tupaiid genus Dendrogale. Unlike a previous mitochondrial study, these nuclear data strongly suggest that the genus Tupaia is not monophyletic with respect to the monotypic Urogale, even when uncertainty about rooting is taken into account. These data concur with mitochondrial DNA on other relationships, including the close affinity of Tupaia tana with the enigmatic Tupaia splendidula and of Tupaia belangeri with Tupaia glis. We also discuss the taxonomic and biogeographic implications of these results. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/sysbio/syp025 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2715937</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25677503</jstor_id><oup_id>10.1093/sysbio/syp025</oup_id><sourcerecordid>25677503</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-382cd92de7b32e7469d47bddf704ade7c0da291cb94c8b21e5b27b692ea012433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxSMEoqVw5AiKuMCBgD9iO-kBqV0BrbQLCBax4mI5zqTrbTZObYdl_3u8TdkCF05vNPPT0xu9JHmM0SuMSvrab31lbJQeEXYnOcRI8KygfHF3N3OaMczEQfLA-xVCGHOG7ycHBDHCWEEOk-EDhI11l_5lOncAUVRXj-PSwcYfpyfeg_emu0i_DH1vXbgmzmvogmm2u_3Edk1rdEg3JizT2dAG07eQTq0216xKPzlbtbBWwej0s7XhYXKvUa2HRzd6lHx993Y-OcumH9-fT06mmWaIh4wWRNclqUFUlIDIeVnnoqrrRqBcxa1GtSIl1lWZ66IiGFhFRMVLAgphklN6lLwZffuhWkOtY2anWtk7s1ZuK60y8u9LZ5bywv6QRGBWUhENnt8YOHs1gA9ybbyGtlUd2MFLQSnmmGIcyWf_kCs7uC5-J3GZi4KwoohQNkLaWe8dNPsoGMldnXKsU451Rv7pn_n39O_-IvBiBOzQ_9fryYiufLDu1opxIRiit9mMD_Bzf1fuUnJBBZNni-9yQmbl7HTxTc7pLxfyxvM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194782588</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Roberts, Trina E. ; Sargis, Eric J. ; Olson, Link E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Trina E. ; Sargis, Eric J. ; Olson, Link E.</creatorcontrib><description>Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multigene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any data set, can make it difficult to specify a model of evolution. In addition, conflict among loci can be the result of real differences in evolutionary process or of stochastic variance and errors in reconstruction. We used 6 presumably unlinked nuclear loci to investigate relationships within the mammalian family Tupaiidae (Scandentia), containing all but one of the extant tupaiid genera. We used a phylogenetic mixture model to analyze the concatenated data and compared this with results using partitioned models. We found that more complex models were not necessarily preferred under tests using Bayes factors and that model complexity affected both tree length and parameter variance. We also compared the results of single-gene and multigene analyses and used splits networks to analyze the source and degree of conflict among genes. Networks can show specific relationships that are inconsistent with each other; these conflicting and minority relationships, which are implicitly ignored or collapsed by traditional consensus methods, can be useful in identifying the underlying causes of topological uncertainty. In our data, conflict is concentrated around particular relationships, not widespread throughout the tree. This pattern is further clarified by considering conflict surrounding the root separately from conflict within the ingroup. Uncertainty in rooting may be because of the apparent evolutionary distance separating these genera and our outgroup, the tupaiid genus Dendrogale. Unlike a previous mitochondrial study, these nuclear data strongly suggest that the genus Tupaia is not monophyletic with respect to the monotypic Urogale, even when uncertainty about rooting is taken into account. These data concur with mitochondrial DNA on other relationships, including the close affinity of Tupaia tana with the enigmatic Tupaia splendidula and of Tupaia belangeri with Tupaia glis. We also discuss the taxonomic and biogeographic implications of these results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1063-5157</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1076-836X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syp025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20525582</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animals ; Bayes Theorem ; Bayesian analysis ; Datasets ; Evolution ; Evolution & development ; Gene loci ; Mammals ; Mitochondrial DNA ; Mixture model ; Models, Genetic ; Monophyly ; Parametric models ; partitioned model ; Phylogenetics ; Phylogeny ; Plant roots ; Regular ; Southeast Asia ; splits network ; Statistical variance ; Systematic biology ; Taxa ; Taxonomy ; Topology ; treeshrew ; Tupaia ; Tupaiidae - classification ; Tupaiidae - genetics ; Urogale ; We they distinction</subject><ispartof>Systematic biology, 2009-04, Vol.58 (2), p.257-270</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009 Society of Systematic Biologists</rights><rights>Society of Systematic Biologists 2009</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Ltd. Apr 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-382cd92de7b32e7469d47bddf704ade7c0da291cb94c8b21e5b27b692ea012433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-382cd92de7b32e7469d47bddf704ade7c0da291cb94c8b21e5b27b692ea012433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25677503$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25677503$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,800,882,1579,27905,27906,57998,58231</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20525582$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Trina E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sargis, Eric J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, Link E.</creatorcontrib><title>Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root</title><title>Systematic biology</title><addtitle>Syst Biol</addtitle><description>Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multigene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any data set, can make it difficult to specify a model of evolution. In addition, conflict among loci can be the result of real differences in evolutionary process or of stochastic variance and errors in reconstruction. We used 6 presumably unlinked nuclear loci to investigate relationships within the mammalian family Tupaiidae (Scandentia), containing all but one of the extant tupaiid genera. We used a phylogenetic mixture model to analyze the concatenated data and compared this with results using partitioned models. We found that more complex models were not necessarily preferred under tests using Bayes factors and that model complexity affected both tree length and parameter variance. We also compared the results of single-gene and multigene analyses and used splits networks to analyze the source and degree of conflict among genes. Networks can show specific relationships that are inconsistent with each other; these conflicting and minority relationships, which are implicitly ignored or collapsed by traditional consensus methods, can be useful in identifying the underlying causes of topological uncertainty. In our data, conflict is concentrated around particular relationships, not widespread throughout the tree. This pattern is further clarified by considering conflict surrounding the root separately from conflict within the ingroup. Uncertainty in rooting may be because of the apparent evolutionary distance separating these genera and our outgroup, the tupaiid genus Dendrogale. Unlike a previous mitochondrial study, these nuclear data strongly suggest that the genus Tupaia is not monophyletic with respect to the monotypic Urogale, even when uncertainty about rooting is taken into account. These data concur with mitochondrial DNA on other relationships, including the close affinity of Tupaia tana with the enigmatic Tupaia splendidula and of Tupaia belangeri with Tupaia glis. We also discuss the taxonomic and biogeographic implications of these results.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bayes Theorem</subject><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Evolution & development</subject><subject>Gene loci</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Mitochondrial DNA</subject><subject>Mixture model</subject><subject>Models, Genetic</subject><subject>Monophyly</subject><subject>Parametric models</subject><subject>partitioned model</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Plant roots</subject><subject>Regular</subject><subject>Southeast Asia</subject><subject>splits network</subject><subject>Statistical variance</subject><subject>Systematic biology</subject><subject>Taxa</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Topology</subject><subject>treeshrew</subject><subject>Tupaia</subject><subject>Tupaiidae - classification</subject><subject>Tupaiidae - genetics</subject><subject>Urogale</subject><subject>We they distinction</subject><issn>1063-5157</issn><issn>1076-836X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1v1DAQxSMEoqVw5AiKuMCBgD9iO-kBqV0BrbQLCBax4mI5zqTrbTZObYdl_3u8TdkCF05vNPPT0xu9JHmM0SuMSvrab31lbJQeEXYnOcRI8KygfHF3N3OaMczEQfLA-xVCGHOG7ycHBDHCWEEOk-EDhI11l_5lOncAUVRXj-PSwcYfpyfeg_emu0i_DH1vXbgmzmvogmm2u_3Edk1rdEg3JizT2dAG07eQTq0216xKPzlbtbBWwej0s7XhYXKvUa2HRzd6lHx993Y-OcumH9-fT06mmWaIh4wWRNclqUFUlIDIeVnnoqrrRqBcxa1GtSIl1lWZ66IiGFhFRMVLAgphklN6lLwZffuhWkOtY2anWtk7s1ZuK60y8u9LZ5bywv6QRGBWUhENnt8YOHs1gA9ybbyGtlUd2MFLQSnmmGIcyWf_kCs7uC5-J3GZi4KwoohQNkLaWe8dNPsoGMldnXKsU451Rv7pn_n39O_-IvBiBOzQ_9fryYiufLDu1opxIRiit9mMD_Bzf1fuUnJBBZNni-9yQmbl7HTxTc7pLxfyxvM</recordid><startdate>20090401</startdate><enddate>20090401</enddate><creator>Roberts, Trina E.</creator><creator>Sargis, Eric J.</creator><creator>Olson, Link E.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090401</creationdate><title>Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root</title><author>Roberts, Trina E. ; Sargis, Eric J. ; Olson, Link E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c506t-382cd92de7b32e7469d47bddf704ade7c0da291cb94c8b21e5b27b692ea012433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bayes Theorem</topic><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Evolution & development</topic><topic>Gene loci</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Mitochondrial DNA</topic><topic>Mixture model</topic><topic>Models, Genetic</topic><topic>Monophyly</topic><topic>Parametric models</topic><topic>partitioned model</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Plant roots</topic><topic>Regular</topic><topic>Southeast Asia</topic><topic>splits network</topic><topic>Statistical variance</topic><topic>Systematic biology</topic><topic>Taxa</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Topology</topic><topic>treeshrew</topic><topic>Tupaia</topic><topic>Tupaiidae - classification</topic><topic>Tupaiidae - genetics</topic><topic>Urogale</topic><topic>We they distinction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Trina E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sargis, Eric J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olson, Link E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Systematic biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roberts, Trina E.</au><au>Sargis, Eric J.</au><au>Olson, Link E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root</atitle><jtitle>Systematic biology</jtitle><addtitle>Syst Biol</addtitle><date>2009-04-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>257</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>257-270</pages><issn>1063-5157</issn><eissn>1076-836X</eissn><abstract>Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multigene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any data set, can make it difficult to specify a model of evolution. In addition, conflict among loci can be the result of real differences in evolutionary process or of stochastic variance and errors in reconstruction. We used 6 presumably unlinked nuclear loci to investigate relationships within the mammalian family Tupaiidae (Scandentia), containing all but one of the extant tupaiid genera. We used a phylogenetic mixture model to analyze the concatenated data and compared this with results using partitioned models. We found that more complex models were not necessarily preferred under tests using Bayes factors and that model complexity affected both tree length and parameter variance. We also compared the results of single-gene and multigene analyses and used splits networks to analyze the source and degree of conflict among genes. Networks can show specific relationships that are inconsistent with each other; these conflicting and minority relationships, which are implicitly ignored or collapsed by traditional consensus methods, can be useful in identifying the underlying causes of topological uncertainty. In our data, conflict is concentrated around particular relationships, not widespread throughout the tree. This pattern is further clarified by considering conflict surrounding the root separately from conflict within the ingroup. Uncertainty in rooting may be because of the apparent evolutionary distance separating these genera and our outgroup, the tupaiid genus Dendrogale. Unlike a previous mitochondrial study, these nuclear data strongly suggest that the genus Tupaia is not monophyletic with respect to the monotypic Urogale, even when uncertainty about rooting is taken into account. These data concur with mitochondrial DNA on other relationships, including the close affinity of Tupaia tana with the enigmatic Tupaia splendidula and of Tupaia belangeri with Tupaia glis. We also discuss the taxonomic and biogeographic implications of these results.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>20525582</pmid><doi>10.1093/sysbio/syp025</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1063-5157 |
ispartof | Systematic biology, 2009-04, Vol.58 (2), p.257-270 |
issn | 1063-5157 1076-836X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2715937 |
source | MEDLINE; Jstor Complete Legacy; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Animals Bayes Theorem Bayesian analysis Datasets Evolution Evolution & development Gene loci Mammals Mitochondrial DNA Mixture model Models, Genetic Monophyly Parametric models partitioned model Phylogenetics Phylogeny Plant roots Regular Southeast Asia splits network Statistical variance Systematic biology Taxa Taxonomy Topology treeshrew Tupaia Tupaiidae - classification Tupaiidae - genetics Urogale We they distinction |
title | Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T03%3A33%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Networks,%20Trees,%20and%20Treeshrews:%20Assessing%20Support%20and%20Identifying%20Conflict%20with%20Multiple%20Loci%20and%20a%20Problematic%20Root&rft.jtitle=Systematic%20biology&rft.au=Roberts,%20Trina%20E.&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=257&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=257-270&rft.issn=1063-5157&rft.eissn=1076-836X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/sysbio/syp025&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E25677503%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194782588&rft_id=info:pmid/20525582&rft_jstor_id=25677503&rft_oup_id=10.1093/sysbio/syp025&rfr_iscdi=true |