The Root of the Tree of Life in the Light of the Covarion Model

Abstract. A few duplicated genes have been found useful to root the universal tree of life. Despite controversial results, the consensus led to locate the root in the eubacterial branch. However, we demonstrated (Philippe and Forterre 1999) that all these markers were in fact unsuitable for any firm conclusion, mainly because of their high level of mutational saturation, which masks a major part of the phylogenetic signal. But then, the very persistence of signal for events as early as the separation of the three domains becomes puzzling. This paradox was studied here for translation elongation factor proteins, EF-1α and EF-2, which appeared to be one of the least confusing markers. We showed that these proteins do not conform to a classical rate-across-sites pattern, as those modeled by a gamma law, but rather to a covarion-based model, because the evolutionary rate of a given position often changes between taxonomic groups. Conservation of the very ancient signal can thus be better explained by the covarion model: a substitution can occur in deep branches, and the position remains constant afterward, as ``fossilized'' by a change of covation. As no reconstruction method has up to now taken into account this complex model, we devised a simple method for extracting the phylogenetic signal, by considering the variability of sequence positions within predefined phylogenetic groups. We showed that noise quantitatively prevailed upon signal. Parsimony will produce erroneous topologies, because it has to minimize primarily the number of steps of the noise. In contrast, our method effectively concentrated the signal and was more suitable for inferring ancient events. We consequently found the eubacterial rooting to be presumably due to a long branch attraction artifact, because of the higher evolutionary rate of Eubacteria for these proteins. Among the two other rooting possibilities, the eukaryotic rooting appeared to be more supported, although not enough to be conclusive.

[1]  Simonetta Gribaldo,et al.  The Root of the Universal Tree of Life Inferred from Anciently Duplicated Genes Encoding Components of the Protein-Targeting Machinery , 1998, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[2]  T. Meyer,et al.  Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence data for construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  James R. Brown,et al.  Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. , 1997, Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR.

[4]  J D Palmer,et al.  The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  K. Bremer.  THE LIMITS OF AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DATA IN ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTION , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  C. Gissi,et al.  The guinea-pig is not a rodent , 1996, Nature.

[7]  D. Roff,et al.  The statistical analysis of mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms: chi 2 and the problem of small samples. , 1989, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  Testing the covarion hypothesis of molecular evolution. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[9]  R. L. Charlebois,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of carbamoylphosphate synthetase genes: complex evolutionary history includes an internal duplication within a gene which can root the tree of life. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  S. Osawa,et al.  Evolutionary relationship of archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes inferred from phylogenetic trees of duplicated genes. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  J. Wägele.  First principles of phylogenetic systematics, a basis for numerical methods used for morphological and molecular characters , 1996 .

[12]  O. Kandler,et al.  Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  H. Philippe,et al.  MUST, a computer package of Management Utilities for Sequences and Trees. , 1993, Nucleic acids research.

[14]  A Janke,et al.  The complete mitochondrial genome of the wallaroo (Macropus robustus) and the phylogenetic relationship among Monotremata, Marsupialia, and Eutheria. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  W. Brown,et al.  Structural biology and phylogenetic estimation , 1997, Nature.

[16]  John C. Avise.  Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution , 1994, Springer US.

[17]  W. Doolittle,et al.  Origin and evolution of the slime molds (Mycetozoa) , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  J. Farris.  A Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting , 1969 .

[19]  J. Farris.  THE RETENTION INDEX AND THE RESCALED CONSISTENCY INDEX , 1989, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[20]  J. Farris,et al.  Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans , 1969 .

[21]  W. Doolittle,et al.  Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Masasuke Yoshida,et al.  Evolution of the vacuolar H+-ATPase: implications for the origin of eukaryotes. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  L. Pauling,et al.  Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins , 1965 .

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

[25]  H Philippe,et al.  Where is the root of the universal tree of life? , 1999, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[26]  W. Fitch.  The estimate of total nucleotide substitutions from pairwise differences is biased. , 1986, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[27]  H. Philippe,et al.  Comparison of molecular and paleontological data in diatoms suggests a major gap in the fossil record , 1994 .

[28]  H. Phillipe.  The molecular phylogeny of eukaryota: solid facts and uncertainties , 1998 .

[29]  C. Woese,et al.  Bacterial evolution , 1987, Microbiological reviews.

[30]  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.

[31]  P. Forterre,et al.  The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

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

[33]  M. Steel,et al.  Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. , 1998, Mathematical biosciences.

[34]  P. Forterre,et al.  The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions. , 1992, Bio Systems.

[35]  R F Doolittle,et al.  Determining divergence times with a protein clock: update and reevaluation. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  M. Steel,et al.  A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.