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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Systematic biology 2009-04, Vol.58 (2), p.257-270
Hauptverfasser: Roberts, Trina E., Sargis, Eric J., Olson, Link E.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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