4.6 Article

Nonstationary Evolution and Compositional Heterogeneity in Beetle Mitochondrial Phylogenomics

期刊

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 381-394

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syp037

关键词

Base compositional heterogeneity; Coleoptera; LogDet; model of evolution; nonstationary evolution; nucleotide composition; phylogeny

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EF-0531665, DEB-0444972]
  2. Brigham Young University Office of Research and Creative Activities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many published phylogenies are based on methods that assume equal nucleotide composition among taxa. Studies have shown, however, that this assumption is often not accurate, particularly in divergent lineages. Nonstationary sequence evolution, when taxa in different lineages evolve in different ways, can lead to unequal nucleotide composition. This can cause inference methods to fail and phylogenies to be inaccurate. Recent advancements in phylogenetic theory have proposed new models of nonstationary sequence evolution; these models often outperform equivalent stationary models. A variety of new phylogenetic software implementing such models has been developed, but the studies employing the new methodology are still few. We discovered convergence of nucleotide composition within mitochondrial genomes of the insect order Coleoptera (beetles). We found variation in base content both among species and among genes in the genome. To this data set, we have applied a broad range of phylogenetic methods, including some traditional stationary models of evolution and all the more recent nonstationary models. We compare 8 inference methods applied to the same data set. Although the more commonly used methods universally fail to recover established clades, we find that some of the newer software packages are more appropriate for data of this nature. The software packages p4, PHASE, and nhPhyML were able to overcome the systematic bias in our data set, but parsimony, MrBayes, NJ, LogDet, and PhyloBayes were not.

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