Person:

Edwards, Scott

The heterogeneity of signals in the genomes of diverse organisms poses challenges for traditional phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic methods known as “species tree” methods have been proposed to directly address one important source of gene tree heterogeneity, namely the incomplete lineage sorting that occurs when evolving lineages radiate rapidly, resulting in a diversity of gene trees from a single underlying species tree. Here we review theory and empirical examples that help clarify conflicts between species tree and concatenation methods, and misconceptions in the literature about the performance of species tree methods. Considering concatenation as a special case of the multispecies coalescent model helps explain differences in the behavior of the two methods on phylogenomic data sets. Recent work suggests that species tree methods are more robust than concatenation approaches to some of the classic challenges of phylogenetic analysis, including rapidly evolving sites in DNA sequences and long-branch attraction. We show that approaches, such as binning, designed to augment the signal in species tree analyses can distort the distribution of gene trees and are inconsistent. Computationally efficient species tree methods incorporating biological realism are a key to phylogenetic analysis of whole-genome data.

The reconstruction of the Tree of Life has relied almost entirely on concatenation methods, which do not accommodate gene tree heterogeneity, a property that simulations and theory have identified as a likely cause of incongruent phylogenies. However, this incongruence has not yet been demonstrated in empirical studies. Several key relationships among eutherian mammals remain controversial and conflicting among previous studies, including the root of eutherian tree and the relationships within Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria. Both Bayesian and maximum-likelihood analysis of genome-wide data of 447 nuclear genes from 37 species show that concatenation methods indeed yield strong incongruence in the phylogeny of eutherian mammals, as revealed by subsampling analyses of loci and taxa, which produced strongly conflicting topologies. In contrast, the coalescent methods, which accommodate gene tree heterogeneity, yield a phylogeny that is robust to variable gene and taxon sampling and is congruent with geographic data. The data also demonstrate that incomplete lineage sorting, a major source of gene tree heterogeneity, is relevant to deep-level phylogenies, such as those among eutherian mammals. Our results firmly place the eutherian root between Atlantogenata and Boreoeutheria and support ungulate polyphyly and a sister-group relationship between Scandentia and Primates. This study demonstrates that the incongruence introduced by concatenation methods is a major cause of long-standing uncertainty in the phylogeny of eutherian mammals, and the same may apply to other clades. Our analyses suggest that such incongruence can be resolved using phylogenomic data and coalescent methods that deal explicitly with gene tree heterogeneity.

We present a genomic data set comprised of the coding DNA sequences of 5162 loci from 90 vertebrate species, including 82 mammals. The loci were aligned with their protein sequences. The aligned protein sequences were then back translated into their original DNA sequences. The alignments were further filtered to remove individual sequences from each alignment exhibiting long branches or other unusual features. The data is deposited in figshare (http://figshare.com/articles/cds_5162.zip/6031190) and will be useful as a test data set for large-scale phylogenomic analysis.

The timing of the origin and diversification of rodents remains controversial, due to conflicting results from molecular clocks and paleontological data. The fossil record tends to support an early Cenozoic origin of crown-group rodents. In contrast, most molecular studies place the origin and initial diversification of crown-Rodentia deep in the Cretaceous, although some molecular analyses have recovered estimated divergence times that are more compatible with the fossil record. Here we attempt to resolve this conflict by carrying out a molecular clock investigation based on a nine-gene sequence dataset and a novel set of seven fossil constraints, including two new rodent records (the earliest known representatives of Cardiocraniinae and Dipodinae). Our results indicate that rodents originated around 61.7–62.4 Ma, shortly after the Cretaceous/Paleogene (K/Pg) boundary, and diversified at the intraordinal level around 57.7–58.9 Ma. These estimates are broadly consistent with the paleontological record, but challenge previous molecular studies that place the origin and early diversification of rodents in the Cretaceous. This study demonstrates that, with reliable fossil constraints, the incompatibility between paleontological and molecular estimates of rodent divergence times can be eliminated using currently available tools and genetic markers. Similar conflicts between molecular and paleontological evidence bedevil attempts to establish the origination times of other placental groups. The example of the present study suggests that more reliable fossil calibration points may represent the key to resolving these controversies.