Abstract

BackgroundSupertree methods combine phylogenies with overlapping sets of taxa into a larger one. Topological conflicts frequently arise among source trees for methodological or biological reasons, such as long branch attraction, lateral gene transfers, gene duplication/loss or deep gene coalescence. When topological conflicts occur among source trees, liberal methods infer supertrees containing the most frequent alternative, while veto methods infer supertrees not contradicting any source tree, i.e. discard all conflicting resolutions. When the source trees host a significant number of topological conflicts or have a small taxon overlap, supertree methods of both kinds can propose poorly resolved, hence uninformative, supertrees.ResultsTo overcome this problem, we propose to infer non-plenary supertrees, i.e. supertrees that do not necessarily contain all the taxa present in the source trees, discarding those whose position greatly differs among source trees or for which insufficient information is provided. We detail a variant of the PhySIC veto method called PhySIC_IST that can infer non-plenary supertrees. PhySIC_IST aims at inferring supertrees that satisfy the same appealing theoretical properties as with PhySIC, while being as informative as possible under this constraint. The informativeness of a supertree is estimated using a variation of the CIC (Cladistic Information Content) criterion, that takes into account both the presence of multifurcations and the absence of some taxa. Additionally, we propose a statistical preprocessing step called STC (Source Trees Correction) to correct the source trees prior to the supertree inference. STC is a liberal step that removes the parts of each source tree that significantly conflict with other source trees. Combining STC with a veto method allows an explicit trade-off between veto and liberal approaches, tuned by a single parameter.Performing large-scale simulations, we observe that STC+PhySIC_IST infers much more informative supertrees than PhySIC, while preserving low type I error compared to the well-known MRP method. Two biological case studies on animals confirm that the STC preprocess successfully detects anomalies in the source trees while STC+PhySIC_IST provides well-resolved supertrees agreeing with current knowledge in systematics.ConclusionThe paper introduces and tests two new methodologies, PhySIC_IST and STC, that demonstrate the interest in inferring non-plenary supertrees as well as preprocessing the source trees. An implementation of the methods is available at: .

Highlights

  • Supertree methods combine phylogenies with overlapping sets of taxa into a larger one

  • In this paper we propose a new supertree veto method (PhySIC_IST), running in polynomial time, that returns supertrees satisfying desirable theoretical properties (PC and Property of Induction (PI))

  • The simulations and the biological case studies confirm the practical effectiveness of PhySIC_IST, showing that this variant of PHYlogenetic Signal with Induction and non-Contradiction (PhySIC) proposes supertrees that are much more informative than those inferred by the original PhySIC algorithm, while the type I error remains low

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Supertree methods combine phylogenies with overlapping sets of taxa into a larger one. Topological conflicts frequently arise among source trees for methodological or biological reasons, such as long branch attraction, lateral gene transfers, gene duplication/loss or deep gene coalescence. When the source trees host a significant number of topological conflicts or have a small taxon overlap, supertree methods of both kinds can propose poorly resolved, uninformative, supertrees. One way is to use supertree methods, which combine overlapping source trees, inferred from primary data (e.g. amino acids, SINEs or morphological traits). Supertree methods are useful, teamed with supermatrix methods, in a divide-and-conquer approach to reconstruct very large phylogenies: first, the set of data is divided into subsets that are analyzed individually, the resulting phylogenies are combined to reconstruct the global phylogeny [1,2]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call