The Root of Flowering Plants and Total Evidence.

Support for Amborella as the sole survivor of an evolutionary lineage that is sister to all other angiosperms comes from positions in DNA multiple-sequence alignments that have a poor fit to time-reversible substitution models. These sites exhibit significant levels of homoplasy, compositional heterogeneity, and strong heterotachy. We report phylogenetic analyses with observed, randomized, and simulated data which show there is little or no expectation that these sites provide useful information for understanding relationships among basal angiosperms. Their inclusion in phylogenetic analyses leads to a long-branch attraction artifact that favors Amborella as sister to other angiosperms in reconstructed phylogenies. Using parametric simulations, we show that sites in chloroplast sequences that exhibit less homoplasy between angiosperms and gymnosperms provide more reliable information for inferring basal angiosperm relationships. We confirm our earlier findings that the basal angiosperm Amborella is most closely related to aquatic herbs. Our current and previously reported (Goremykin et al. 2013) analyses highlight an essential aspect of the total evidence approach to phylogenetic inference. They suggest that data partitioning aimed at identifying components of the data that better fit evolutionary models is a more reliable approach to phylogeny reconstruction at deep taxonomic levels.

[1]  Liang Liu,et al.  Coalescent versus concatenation methods and the placement of Amborella as sister to water lilies. , 2014, Systematic biology.

[2]  Thomas K. F. Wong,et al.  Mixture models of nucleotide sequence evolution that account for heterogeneity in the substitution process across sites and across lineages. , 2014, Systematic biology.

[3]  E. Cooper Overly simplistic substitution models obscure green plant phylogeny. , 2014, Trends in plant science.

[4]  Z. Kfir Points of View , 2014, Leonardo.

[5]  Matthew A. Gitzendanner,et al.  Another look at the root of the angiosperms reveals a familiar tale. , 2014, Systematic biology.

[6]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  Identifiability and inference of non-parametric rates-across-sites models on large-scale phylogenies , 2011, Journal of mathematical biology.

[7]  R. A. Atherton,et al.  The evolutionary root of flowering plants. , 2013, Systematic biology.

[8]  Hervé Philippe,et al.  Origin of land plants revisited in the light of sequence contamination and missing data , 2012, Current Biology.

[9]  K. Peterson,et al.  Resolving phylogenetic signal from noise when divergence is rapid: a new look at the old problem of echinoderm class relationships. , 2012, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[10]  Carla A. Cummins,et al.  A method for inferring the rate of evolution of homologous characters that can potentially improve phylogenetic inference, resolve deep divergence and correct systematic biases. , 2011, Systematic biology.

[11]  Claude W. dePamphilis,et al.  Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms , 2011, Nature.

[12]  D. E. Soltis,et al.  Angiosperm phylogeny: 17 genes, 640 taxa. , 2011, American journal of botany.

[13]  Andrew J. Heidel,et al.  Origin of land plants: Do conjugating green algae hold the key? , 2011, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[14]  C. Delwiche,et al.  Multigene Phylogeny of the Green Lineage Reveals the Origin and Diversification of Land Plants , 2010, Current Biology.

[15]  Y. Qiu,et al.  Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from sequences of four mitochondrial genes , 2010 .

[16]  V. Goremykin,et al.  Automated Removal of Noisy Data in Phylogenomic Analyses , 2010, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[17]  J. Townsend,et al.  Optimal selection of gene and ingroup taxon sampling for resolving phylogenetic relationships. , 2010, Systematic biology.

[18]  J. G. Burleigh,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of 83 plastid genes further resolves the early diversification of eudicots , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Davide Pisani,et al.  Phylogenetic-signal dissection of nuclear housekeeping genes supports the paraphyly of sponges and the monophyly of Eumetazoa. , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

[20]  R. Viola,et al.  Removal of Noisy Characters from Chloroplast Genome-Scale Data Suggests Revision of Phylogenetic Placements of Amborella and Ceratophyllum , 2009, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[21]  S. Graham,et al.  Different gymnosperm outgroups have (mostly) congruent signal regarding the root of flowering plant phylogeny. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[22]  Andrey V. Mardanov,et al.  Complete Sequence of the Duckweed (Lemna minor) Chloroplast Genome: Structural Organization and Phylogenetic Relationships to Other Angiosperms , 2008, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[23]  H. Philippe,et al.  Improvement of molecular phylogenetic inference and the phylogeny of Bilateria , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  James Leebens-Mack,et al.  Analysis of 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships in angiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Pamela S Soltis,et al.  Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angiosperms , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  T. Massingham,et al.  Experimental design criteria in phylogenetics: where to add taxa. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[27]  Chung-Shien Wu,et al.  Chloroplast genome (cpDNA) of Cycas taitungensis and 56 cp protein-coding genes of Gnetum parvifolium: insights into cpDNA evolution and phylogeny of extant seed plants. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[28]  Naiara Rodríguez-Ezpeleta,et al.  Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[29]  P. Lockhart,et al.  Deciphering ancient rapid radiations. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  Jeffrey P Townsend,et al.  Profiling phylogenetic informativeness. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[31]  Rob DeSalle,et al.  How many genes should a systematist sample? Conflicting insights from a phylogenomic matrix characterized by replicated incongruence. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[32]  J. Gordon Burleigh,et al.  Assessing Systematic Error in the Inference of Seed Plant Phylogeny , 2007, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[33]  Elchanan Mossel,et al.  How much can evolved characters tell us about the tree that generated them? , 2004, Mathematics of Evolution and Phylogeny.

[34]  R. Jansen,et al.  The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck var 'Ridge Pineapple': organization and phylogenetic relationships to other angiosperms , 2006, BMC Plant Biology.

[35]  Faisal Ababneh,et al.  Matched-pairs tests of homogeneity with applications to homologous nucleotide sequences , 2006, Bioinform..

[36]  F. Delsuc,et al.  Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? , 2006, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[37]  Chung-Yen Lin,et al.  The chloroplast genome of Phalaenopsis aphrodite (Orchidaceae): comparative analysis of evolutionary rate with that of grasses and its phylogenetic implications. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[38]  A. White,et al.  Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phylogeny: evaluating information content of mitochondrial genes , 2006 .

[39]  Andrew Rambaut,et al.  Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eubacteria. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.

[40]  Andrew J. Alverson,et al.  Phylogenetic analyses of Vitis (Vitaceae) based on complete chloroplast genome sequences: effects of taxon sampling and phylogenetic methods on resolving relationships among rosids , 2006, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[41]  M. Steel,et al.  A tale of two processes. , 2005, Systematic biology.

[42]  R. Gutell,et al.  Phylogenetic Analyses of Basal Angiosperms Based on Nine Plastid, Mitochondrial, and Nuclear Genes , 2005, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[43]  Bryan Kolaczkowski,et al.  No magic pill for phylogenetic error. , 2005, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[44]  Jim Leebens-Mack,et al.  Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein zone. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  Edward Susko,et al.  Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[46]  F. Delsuc,et al.  Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[47]  J. G. Burleigh,et al.  Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: a new statistical test. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[48]  P. Waddell,et al.  Measuring the fit of sequence data to phylogenetic model: allowing for missing data. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[49]  G. Serio,et al.  A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[50]  Davide Pisani,et al.  Identifying and removing fast-evolving sites using compatibility analysis: an example from the Arthropoda. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[51]  Bryan Kolaczkowski,et al.  Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous , 2004, Nature.

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

[53]  Pamela S Soltis,et al.  Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. , 2004, Trends in plant science.

[54]  J. Palmer,et al.  Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? , 2004, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[55]  M. Schwarz,et al.  Molecular phylogenetics of the allodapine bee genus Braunsapis: A-T bias and heterogeneous substitution parameters. , 2004, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[56]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Dating the Monocot–Dicot Divergence and the Origin of Core Eudicots Using Whole Chloroplast Genomes , 2004, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[57]  C. Neinhuis,et al.  Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. , 2003, American journal of botany.

[58]  S. Carroll,et al.  Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies , 2003, Nature.

[59]  V. Goremykin,et al.  Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome sequence suggests that amborella is not a basal angiosperm. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[60]  S. Poe Evaluation of the strategy of long-branch subdivision to improve the accuracy of phylogenetic methods. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[61]  M. Donoghue,et al.  The root of the angiosperms revisited , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  James Lyons-Weiler,et al.  Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  D. Soltis,et al.  Basal Lineages of Angiosperms: Relationships and Implications for Floral Evolution , 2000, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[64]  W. Martin,et al.  Phylogeny of 33 ribosomal and six other proteins encoded in an ancient gene cluster that is conserved across prokaryotic genomes: influence of excluding poorly alignable sites from analysis. , 2000, International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology.

[65]  D. Soltis,et al.  Phylogenetics of flowering plants based on combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences. , 2000, Systematic biology.

[66]  J. Palmer,et al.  Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three plant genomes: monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales from conifers. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[67]  M. P. Cummings,et al.  PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) Version 4 , 2000 .

[68]  Hervé Philippe,et al.  The Root of the Tree of Life in the Light of the Covarion Model , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[69]  H. Philippe,et al.  Archaea sister group of Bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.

[70]  E. Herniou,et al.  Acoel flatworms: earliest extant bilaterian Metazoans, not members of Platyhelminthes. , 1999, Science.

[71]  J. Farris,et al.  Homoplasy Increases Phylogenetic Structure , 1999 .

[72]  W. Doolittle,et al.  Microsporidia are related to Fungi: evidence from the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II and other proteins. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  Nick Goldman,et al.  Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[74]  A. Graybeal,et al.  Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? , 1998, Systematic biology.

[75]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[76]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[77]  D Penny,et al.  Evolution of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll: the problem of invariant sites in sequence analysis. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[78]  W. Martin,et al.  Noncoding sequences from the slowly evolving chloroplast inverted repeat in addition to rbcL data do not support gnetalean affinities of angiosperms. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[79]  D Penny,et al.  A frequency-dependent significance test for parsimony. , 1995, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[80]  M. Steel,et al.  Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[81]  M. A. Steel,et al.  Confidence in evolutionary trees from biological sequence data , 1993, Nature.

[82]  Masami Hasegawa,et al.  Ribosomal RNA trees misleading? , 1993, Nature.

[83]  D Penny,et al.  Progress with methods for constructing evolutionary trees. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[84]  A. Kluge A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes) , 1989 .

[85]  H. Jeffreys Logical Foundations of Probability , 1952, Nature.