4.8 Article

Placing Ancient DNA Sequences into Reference Phylogenies

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msac017

关键词

ancient DNA; phylogenetic placement; Y chromosome haplogroups

资金

  1. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) Long-Term Fellowship [ALTF 133-2017]
  2. Estonian Research Council [PUT1036]
  3. Wellcome 4-year PhD program in Mathematical Genomics and Medicine [WT220023]
  4. Wellcome [WT207492]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a new likelihood-based workflow, pathPhynder, for joint analysis of ancient DNA and modern phylogenies. By utilizing all polymorphic sites in the target sequence, this method effectively determines the most likely placement of ancient samples in the phylogeny and assigns them to haplogroups.
Joint phylogenetic analysis of ancient DNA (aDNA) with modern phylogenies is hampered by low sequence coverage and post-mortem deamination, often resulting in overconservative or incorrect assignment. We provide a new efficient likelihood-based workflow, pathPhynder, that takes advantage of all the polymorphic sites in the target sequence. This effectively evaluates the number of ancestral and derived alleles present on each branch and reports the most likely placement of an ancient sample in the phylogeny and a haplogroup assignment, together with alternatives and supporting evidence. To illustrate the application of pathPhynder, we show improved Y chromosome assignments for published aDNA sequences, using a newly compiled Y variation data set (120,908 markers from 2,014 samples) that significantly enhances Y haplogroup assignment for low coverage samples. We apply the method to all published male aDNA samples from Africa, giving new insights into ancient migrations and the relationships between ancient and modern populations. The same software can be used to place samples with large amounts of missing data into other large non-recombining phylogenies such as the mitochondrial tree.

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

4.8
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