Visualizing conflicting evolutionary hypotheses in large collections of trees: using consensus networks to study the origins of placentals and hexapods.

Many phylogenetic methods produce large collections of trees as opposed to a single tree, which allows the exploration of support for various evolutionary hypotheses. However, to be useful, the information contained in large collections of trees should be summarized; frequently this is achieved by constructing a consensus tree. Consensus trees display only those signals that are present in a large proportion of the trees. However, by their very nature consensus trees require that any conflicts between the trees are necessarily disregarded. We present a method that extends the notion of consensus trees to allow the visualization of conflicting hypotheses in a consensus network. We demonstrate the utility of this method in highlighting differences amongst maximum likelihood bootstrap values and Bayesian posterior probabilities in the placental mammal phylogeny, and also in comparing the phylogenetic signal contained in amino acid versus nucleotide characters for hexapod monophyly.

[1]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  Comment on the Quartet Puzzling Method for Finding Maximum-Likelihood Tree Topologies , 1998 .

[2]  Martin Vingron,et al.  TREE-PUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing , 2002, Bioinform..

[3]  Hervé Philippe,et al.  Horizontal gene transfer and phylogenetics. , 2003, Current opinion in microbiology.

[4]  Emily C. Moriarty,et al.  The importance of proper model assumption in bayesian phylogenetics. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[5]  V Moulton,et al.  Pruned median networks: a technique for reducing the complexity of median networks. , 2001, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[6]  O. Madsen,et al.  Indels in protein-coding sequences of Euarchontoglires constrain the rooting of the eutherian tree. , 2003, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[7]  Michael D. Hendy,et al.  A Framework for the Quantitative Study of Evolutionary Trees , 1989 .

[8]  Derrick J. Zwickl,et al.  Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. , 2002, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[9]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software , 2001, Bioinform..

[10]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[11]  O. Gascuel,et al.  Quartet-based phylogenetic inference: improvements and limits. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  M Hasegawa,et al.  Instability of quartet analyses of molecular sequence data by the maximum likelihood method: the Cetacea/Artiodactyla relationships. , 1996, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[13]  Daniel H. Huson,et al.  SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data , 1998, Bioinform..

[14]  Nick Goldman,et al.  Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution , 1993, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[15]  J. Thompson,et al.  Adoptive T cell therapy using antigen-specific CD8+ T cell clones for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: In vivo persistence, migration, and antitumor effect of transferred T cells , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Peter G. Foster,et al.  Compositional Bias May Affect Both DNA-Based and Protein-Based Phylogenetic Reconstructions , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[17]  W. W. Jong.  Molecules remodel the mammalian tree , 1998 .

[18]  B. Rannala,et al.  Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[19]  O. Gascuel,et al.  A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[20]  M. Mckenna.  Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of the Mammalia , 1975 .

[21]  Diana J. Kao,et al.  Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals , 2001, Nature.

[22]  A. Dress,et al.  A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set , 1992 .

[23]  Klaus-Peter Koepfli,et al.  A new phylogenetic marker, apolipoprotein B, provides compelling evidence for eutherian relationships. , 2003, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[24]  Asami,et al.  Towards Resolving the Interordinal Relationships of Placental Mammals , 2001 .

[25]  Daniel H. Huson,et al.  SplitsTree-a program for analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data , 1997 .

[26]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  Consensus Networks: A Method for Visualising Incompatibilities in Collections of Trees , 2003, WABI.

[27]  Michael P. Cummings,et al.  PAUP* [Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods)] , 2004 .

[28]  D Penny,et al.  Estimating the reliability of evolutionary trees. , 1986, Molecular biology and evolution.

[29]  W. Doolittle,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  David Bryant,et al.  A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics , 2001, Bioconsensus.

[31]  Hirohisa Kishino,et al.  Very fast algorithms for evaluating the stability of ML and Bayesian phylogenetic trees from sequence data. , 2002, Genome informatics. International Conference on Genome Informatics.

[32]  H. Philippe,et al.  How good are deep phylogenetic trees? , 1998, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[33]  Heather M. Amrine,et al.  Mitochondrial versus nuclear gene sequences in deep-level mammalian phylogeny reconstruction. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[34]  S. O’Brien,et al.  Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals , 2001, Nature.

[35]  David Posada,et al.  MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution , 1998, Bioinform..

[36]  John P. Huelsenbeck,et al.  MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models , 2003, Bioinform..

[37]  ohn,et al.  Potential Applications and Pitfalls of Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny , 2002 .

[38]  H. Bandelt,et al.  Mitochondrial portraits of human populations using median networks. , 1995, Genetics.

[39]  W. Murphy,et al.  Resolution of the Early Placental Mammal Radiation Using Bayesian Phylogenetics , 2001, Science.

[40]  Mark P. Simmons,et al.  How meaningful are Bayesian support values? , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[41]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  Spectronet: a package for computing spectra and median networks. , 2002, Applied bioinformatics.

[42]  J. Felsenstein.  Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .

[43]  D. Penny,et al.  Comment on "Hexapod Origins: Monophyletic or Paraphyletic?" , 2003, Science.

[44]  T. Britton,et al.  Reliability of Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap frequencies in phylogenetics. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[45]  J. Felsenstein.  CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[46]  RICHARD H. Thomas.  Wingless Insects and Plucked Chickens , 2003, Science.

[47]  Antonis Rokas,et al.  Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[48]  F. Szalay,et al.  Phylogeny of the Primates , 1975, Springer US.

[49]  F. Lutzoni,et al.  Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[50]  E. Douzery,et al.  The pitfalls of molecular phylogeny based on four species, as illustrated by the Cetacea/Artiodactyla relationships , 1994, Journal of Mammalian Evolution.

[51]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  Model of amino acid substitution in proteins encoded by mitochondrial DNA , 1996, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[52]  K. Kjer,et al.  Aligned 18S and insect phylogeny. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[53]  Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,et al.  Combination of data in phylogenetic analysis , 1995 .

[54]  K. Strimmer,et al.  Quartet Puzzling: A Quartet Maximum-Likelihood Method for Reconstructing Tree Topologies , 1996 .

[55]  J. Bull,et al.  An Empirical Test of Bootstrapping as a Method for Assessing Confidence in Phylogenetic Analysis , 1993 .

[56]  D. Swofford.  PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4.0b10 , 2002 .

[57]  M. Stanhope,et al.  Molecular phylogeny of living xenarthrans and the impact of character and taxon sampling on the placental tree rooting. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[58]  Vincent Moulton,et al.  A note on extremal combinatorics of cyclic split systems. , 2001 .

[59]  Luay Nakhleh,et al.  Phylogenetic networks , 2004 .

[60]  Mark P. Simmons,et al.  Amino acid vs. nucleotide characters: challenging preconceived notions. , 2002, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[61]  Masatoshi Nei,et al.  Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  J. Boore,et al.  Hexapod Origins: Monophyletic or Paraphyletic? , 2003, Science.