4.0 Article

Birth-death models and coalescent point processes: The shape and probability of reconstructed phylogenies

期刊

THEORETICAL POPULATION BIOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 113-128

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2013.10.002

关键词

Random tree; Macroevolution; Incomplete sampling; Likelihood; Inference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forward-in-time models of diversification (i.e., speciation and extinction) produce phylogenetic trees that grow vertically as time goes by. Pruning the extinct lineages out of such trees leads to natural models for reconstructed trees (i.e., phylogenies of extant species). Alternatively, reconstructed trees can be modelled by coalescent point processes (CPPs), where trees grow horizontally by the sequential addition of vertical edges. Each new edge starts at some random speciation time and ends at the present time; speciation times are drawn from the same distribution independently. CPPs lead to extremely fast computation of tree likelihoods and simulation of reconstructed trees. Their topology always follows the uniform distribution on ranked tree shapes (URT). We characterize which forward-in-time models lead to URT reconstructed trees and among these, which lead to CPP reconstructed trees. We show that for any asymmetric diversification model in which speciation rates only depend on time and extinction rates only depend on time and on a non-heritable trait (e.g., age), the reconstructed tree is CPP, even if extant species are incompletely sampled. If rates additionally depend on the number of species, the reconstructed tree is (only) URT (but not CPP). We characterize the common distribution of speciation times in the CPP description, and discuss incomplete species sampling as well as three special model cases in detail: (1) the extinction rate does not depend on a trait; (2) rates do not depend on time; (3) mass extinctions may happen additionally at certain points in the past. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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