On the effects of selection and mutation on species tree inference

Wascher, Matthew; Kubatko, Laura

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107650

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that variation in phylogenetic history is ubiquitous, arising naturally from speciation, diversification, and evolution (Maddison 1997; Nichols 2001; Degnan and Rosenberg 2009; Kutschera et al 2014). Importantly, individual gene trees at specific genetic loci often differ wildly from one another and from the overall species tree as a result of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS; Maddison 1997; Nichols 2001; Degnan and Rosenberg 2009; Hobolth et al 2011), introgression (Yu et al 2011; Leaché et al 2014; Solís-Lemus et al 2016; Tian and Kubatko 2016; Long and Kubatko 2018), ancestral structure (Slatkin and Pollack 2008; DeGiorgio and Rosenberg 2016; Koch and DeGiorgio 2020), and natural selection (Adams et al 2018; Borges et al 2020; He et al 2020; Wascher and Kubatko 2023). Of these processes, ILS is arguably the most infamous (Maddison 1997; Kubatko and Degnan 2007; Edwards 2009; Liu et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of too many trees: a conundrum for phylogenetic regression

Adams,

Lozano,

Duncan

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Just exactly which tree(s) should we assume when testing evolutionary hypotheses? This question has plagued comparative biologists for decades. Given a perfectly estimated tree (if this is even possible in practice), we seldom know with certainty whether such a tree is truly best (or even adequate) to represent the evolutionary history of our studied traits. Regardless of our certainty, choosing a tree is required for all phylogenetic comparative methods. Yet, phylogenetic conflict and error are ubiquitous in modern comparative biology, and we are still learning about their dangers when testing evolutionary hypotheses. Here we investigated the consequences of gene tree-species tree mismatch for phylogenetic regression in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting. Our simulation experiments reveal excessively high false positive rates for mismatched phylogenetic regression with both small and large trees, simple and complex traits, and known and estimated phylogenies. In some cases, we find evidence of a directionality of error: incorrectly assuming a species tree for traits that evolved according to a gene tree sometimes fares worse than the opposite. To explore difficult yet realistic regression scenarios, we also used estimated rather than known trees to conduct case studies, as well as an expansive gene expression dataset to investigate an arguably best-case scenario in which one may have a better chance to match tree with trait. Though never meant to be a panacea for all that may ail phylogenetic comparative methods, we found promise in the application of a robust estimator as a potential, albeit imperfect, solution to some issues raised by tree mismatch, perhaps offering a path forward. Collectively, our results emphasize the importance of careful study design for comparative methods, highlighting the need to fully appreciate the role of adequate phylogenetic modeling for testing evolutionary hypotheses.

show abstract