MtArt: a new model of amino acid replacement for Arthropoda.

A statistical approach was applied to select those models that best fit each individual mitochondrial (mt) protein at different taxonomic levels of metazoans. The existing mitochondrial replacement matrices, MtREV and MtMam, were found to be the best-fit models for the mt-proteins of vertebrates, with the exception of Nd6, at different taxonomic levels. Remarkably, existing mitochondrial matrices generally failed to best-fit invertebrate mt-proteins. In an attempt to better model the evolution of invertebrate mt-proteins, a new replacement matrix, named MtArt, was constructed based on arthropod mt-proteomes. The new model was found to best fit almost all analyzed invertebrate mt-protein data sets. The observed pattern of model fit across the different data sets indicates that no single replacement matrix is able to describe the general evolutionary properties of mt-proteins but rather that taxonomical biases and/or the existence of different mt-genetic codes have great influence on which model is selected.

[1]  James M. Carpenter,et al.  The Phylogeny of the Extant Hexapod Orders , 2001, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[2]  J. Thompson,et al.  CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[3]  William R. Taylor,et al.  The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences , 1992, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[4]  D. Tautz,et al.  Mitochondrial protein phylogeny joins myriapods with chelicerates , 2001, Nature.

[5]  J. Reeves,et al.  Heterogeneity in the substitution process of amino acid sites of proteins coded for by mitochondrial DNA , 1992, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[6]  Z. Yang,et al.  Models of amino acid substitution and applications to mitochondrial protein evolution. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[8]  David Posada,et al.  ProtTest: selection of best-fit models of protein evolution , 2005, Bioinform..

[9]  J. Benzie,et al.  The complete sequence of the mitochondrial genome of the crustacean Penaeus monodon: are malacostracan crustaceans more closely related to insects than to branchiopods? , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  David C. Jones,et al.  Assessing the impact of secondary structure and solvent accessibility on protein evolution. , 1998, Genetics.

[11]  Itay Mayrose,et al.  ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  D. Posada,et al.  Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[13]  Thomas J Naughton,et al.  Assessment of methods for amino acid matrix selection and their use on empirical data shows that ad hoc assumptions for choice of matrix are not justified , 2006, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[14]  Masami Hasegawa,et al.  Phylogenetic relationships among eutherian orders estimated from inferred sequences of mitochondrial proteins: Instability of a tree based on a single gene , 1994, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[15]  Gonzalo Giribet,et al.  A Review of Arthropod Phylogeny: New Data Based on Ribosomal DNA Sequences and Direct Character Optimization , 2000 .

[16]  Ziheng Yang,et al.  PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

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

[18]  Lee Makowski,et al.  DIVAA: analysis of amino acid diversity in multiple aligned protein sequences , 2004, Bioinform..

[19]  J. Shultz,et al.  Molecular phylogeny of the major arthropod groups indicates polyphyly of crustaceans and a new hypothesis for the origin of hexapods. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[20]  Wei Qian,et al.  Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[22]  H. Philippe,et al.  A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[23]  Gonzalo Giribet,et al.  Arthropod phylogeny based on eight molecular loci and morphology , 2001, Nature.

[24]  Laerte Oliveira,et al.  Identification of functionally conserved residues with the use of entropy–variability plots , 2003, Proteins.

[25]  Matthew R. Pocock,et al.  The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences. , 2002, Genome research.

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

[27]  Korbinian Strimmer,et al.  PAL: an object-oriented programming library for molecular evolution and phylogenetics , 2001, Bioinform..

[28]  J. Shultz,et al.  Pancrustacean phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Z. Yang,et al.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. , 1993, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .