4.6 Article

Comparison of Species Tree Methods for Reconstructing the Phylogeny of Bearded Manakins (Aves: Pipridae, Manacus) from Multilocus Sequence Data

期刊

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 719-731

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/10635150802422290

关键词

Gene trees; incomplete lineage sorting; manakin; phylogeny; species tree

资金

  1. [DEB-0543562]
  2. [DBI-0400797]
  3. [DEB-0108249]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the power of multi-locus data in estimating species trees is apparent, it is also clear that the analytical methodologies for doing so are still maturing. For example, of the methods currently available for estimating species trees from multiocus data, the Bayesian method introduced by Liu and Pearl (2007; BEST) is the only one that provides nodal support values. Using gene sequences from five nuclear loci, we explored two analytical methods (deep coalescence and BEST) to reconstruct the species tree of the five primary Manacus OTUs: M. aurantiacus, M. candei, M. vitellinus, populations of M. manacus from west of the Andes (M. manacus (w)), and populations of M. manacus from east of the Andes (M. manacus (e)). Both BEST and deep coalescence supported a sister relationship between M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). A lower probability tree from the BEST analysis and one of the most parsimonious deep coalescence trees also supported a sister relationship between M. candei and M. aurantiacus. Because hybrid zones connect the distributions of most Manacus species, we examined the potential influence of post-divergence gene flow on the sister relationship of parapatrically distributed M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). An isolation-with-migration (IM) analysis found relatively high levels of gene flow between M. vitellinus and M. manacus (w). Whether the gene flow is obscuring a true sister relationship between M. manacus (w) and M. manacus (e) remained unclear, pointing to the need for more detailed models accommodating multispecies, multilocus DNA sequence data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据