4.8 Article

Phylogenetic discovery bias in Bacillus anthracis using single-nucleotide polymorphisms from whole-genome sequencing

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0403844101

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [N01 AI 15447, N01AI15447] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM060795, R01 GM 060795] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogenetic reconstruction using molecular data is often subject to homoplasy, leading to inaccurate conclusions about phylogenetic relationships among operational taxonomic units. Compared with other molecular markers, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) exhibit extremely low mutation rates, making them rare in recently emerged pathogens, but they are less prone to homoplasy and thus extremely valuable for phylogenetic analyses. Despite their phylogenetic potential, ascertainment bias occurs when SNP characters are discovered through biased taxonomic sampling; by using whole-genome comparisons of five diverse strains of Bacillus anthracis to facilitate SNP discovery, we show that only polymorphisms lying along the evolutionary pathway between reference strains will be observed. We illustrate this in theoretical and simulated data sets in which complex phylogenetic topologies are reduced to linear evolutionary models. Using a set of 990 SNP markers, we also show how divergent branches in our topologies collapse to single points but provide accurate information on internodal distances and points of origin for ancestral clades. These data allowed us to determine the ancestral root of B. anthracis, showing that it lies closer to a newly described C branch than to either of two previously described A or B branches. In addition, subclade rooting of the C branch revealed unequal evolutionary rates that seem to be correlated with ecological parameters and strain attributes. Our use of nonhomoplastic whole-genome SNP characters allows branch points and clade membership to be estimated with great precision, providing greater insight into epidemiological, ecological, and forensic questions.

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