Untangling long branches: identifying conflicting phylogenetic signals using spectral analysis, neighbor-net, and consensus networks.

Long-branch attraction is a well-known source of systematic error that can mislead phylogenetic methods; it is frequently invoked post hoc, upon recovering a different tree from the one expected based on prior evidence. We demonstrate that methods that do not force the data onto a single tree, such as spectral analysis, Neighbor-Net, and consensus networks, can be used to detect conflicting signals within the data, including those caused by long-branch attraction. We illustrate this approach using a set of taxa from three unambiguously monophyletic families within the Pelecaniformes: the darters, the cormorants and shags, and the gannets and boobies. These three families are universally acknowledged as forming a monophyletic group, but the relationship between the families remains contentious. Using sequence data from three mitochondrial genes (12S, ATPase 6, and ATPase 8) we demonstrate that the relationship between these three families is difficult to resolve because they are separated by a short internal branch and there are conflicting signals due to long-branch attraction, which are confounded with nonhomogeneous sequence evolution across the different genes. Spectral analysis, Neighbor-Net, and consensus networks reveal conflicting signals regarding the placement of one of the darters, with support found for darter monophyly, but also support for a conflicting grouping with the outgroup, pelicans. Furthermore, parsimony and maximum-likelihood analyses produced different trees, with one of the two most parsimonious trees not supporting the monophyly of the darters. Monte Carlo simulations, however, were not sensitive enough to reveal long-branch attraction unless the branches are longer than those actually observed. These results indicate that spectral analysis, Neighbor-Net, and consensus networks offer a powerful approach to detecting and understanding the source of conflicting signals within phylogenetic data.

[1]  Frédéric Delsuc,et al.  Visualizing conflicting evolutionary hypotheses in large collections of trees: using consensus networks to study the origins of placentals and hexapods. , 2005, Systematic biology.

[2]  D. Swofford,et al.  Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. , 2004, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

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

[4]  Susanne Schulmeister,et al.  Inconsistency of maximum parsimony revisited. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[5]  D. Penny,et al.  Four new avian mitochondrial genomes help get to basic evolutionary questions in the late cretaceous. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  H. Spencer,et al.  Phylogenies of the Frigatebirds (Fregatidae) and Tropicbirds (Phaethonidae), two divergent groups of the traditional order Pelecaniformes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. , 2004, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[7]  V. Moulton,et al.  Neighbor-net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  A. Meyer,et al.  Testing the phylogeny of swordtail fishes using split decomposition and spectral analysis , 1995, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

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

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

[11]  D. Penny,et al.  Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock--a simulation study. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[12]  R. Gray,et al.  Rapid evolutionary divergences in reef fishes of the family Acanthuridae (Perciformes: Teleostei). , 2003, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[13]  F. Lapointe,et al.  Branch lengths and support. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[14]  A. Dress,et al.  δ Plots: A Tool for Analyzing Phylogenetic Distance Data , 2002 .

[15]  David Penny,et al.  Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[16]  G. Lecointre,et al.  When does the incongruence length difference test fail? , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

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

[19]  S. Hedges,et al.  Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  R. Gray,et al.  The phylogenetic relationships of the shags and cormorants: can sequence data resolve a disagreement between behavior and morphology? , 2000, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[21]  C. Orme,et al.  Noise and incongruence: interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. , 2000, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

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

[23]  H. Spencer,et al.  PHYLOGENY, BIOGEOGRAPHY, AND TAXONOMY OF AUSTRALASIAN TEALS , 2000 .

[24]  J. Wiens,et al.  War of the Iguanas: conflicting molecular and morphological phylogenies and long-branch attraction in iguanid lizards. , 2000, Systematic biology.

[25]  Wilkinson,et al.  Testing the phylogenetic stability of early tetrapods , 1999, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  M. Charleston,et al.  Spectral Analysis - a Brief Introduction , 1999 .

[27]  P. Hollingsworth,et al.  Molecular systematics and plant evolution , 1999 .

[28]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  Interordinal relationships of birds and other reptiles based on whole mitochondrial genomes. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[29]  D. Penny,et al.  Mammalian evolution: timing and implications from using the LogDeterminant transform for proteins of differing amino acid composition. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[30]  J. Huelsenbeck.  Systematic bias in phylogenetic analysis: is the Strepsiptera problem solved? , 1998, Systematic biology.

[31]  S. Poe,et al.  The Effect of Taxonomic Sampling on Accuracy of Phylogeny Estimation: Test Case of a Known Phylogeny , 1998 .

[32]  D. Hillis,et al.  BEST‐FIT MAXIMUM‐LIKELIHOOD MODELS FOR PHYLOGENETIC INFERENCE: EMPIRICAL TESTS WITH KNOWN PHYLOGENIES , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  B. Slikas.  RECOGNIZING AND TESTING HOMOLOGY OF COURTSHIP DISPLAYS IN STORKS (AVES: CICONIIFORMES: CICONIIDAE) , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[34]  R. Page,et al.  A different tempo of mitochondrial DNA evolution in birds and their parasitic lice. , 1998, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

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

[36]  D. Hillis,et al.  Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[37]  Michael A. Charleston,et al.  Spectrum: spectral analysis of phylogenetic data , 1998, Bioinform..

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

[39]  James Lyons-Weiler,et al.  Escaping from the Felsenstein zone by detecting long branches in phylogenetic data. , 1997, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[40]  Andrew Rambaut,et al.  Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[41]  J. Huelsenbeck.  Is the Felsenstein zone a fly trap? , 1997, Systematic biology.

[42]  D. Mindell.  Avian molecular evolution and systematics , 1997 .

[43]  D. Siegel-Causey.  CHAPTER 6 – Phylogeny of the Pelecaniformes: Molecular Systematics of a Privative Group , 1997 .

[44]  M. Wilkinson,et al.  Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[45]  R. Gray,et al.  Hop, step and gape: do the social displays of the Pelecaniformes reflect phylogeny? , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  Carol J. Bult,et al.  Constructing a Significance Test for Incongruence , 1995 .

[47]  D. Penny,et al.  Use of spectral analysis to test hypotheses on the origin of pinnipeds. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[48]  S. Hedges,et al.  Molecules vs. morphology in avian evolution: the case of the "pelecaniform" birds. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  S. Nadler,et al.  Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites. , 1994, Science.

[50]  J. Cracraft.  Species Diversity, Biogeography, and the Evolution of Biotas , 1994 .

[51]  D. Penny,et al.  Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data , 1993 .

[52]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. , 1992, The Journal of heredity.

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

[54]  D. Faith.  Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly , 1991 .

[55]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  COULD A CLADOGRAM THIS SHORT HAVE ARISEN BY CHANCE ALONE?: ON PERMUTATION TESTS FOR CLADISTIC STRUCTURE , 1991 .

[56]  Jon E. Ahlquist,et al.  Phylogeny and Classification of the Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution , 1991 .

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

[58]  A. Meyer,et al.  Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  N. Saitou,et al.  The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.

[60]  N. Saito.  The neighbor-joining method : A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees , 1987 .

[61]  J. Cracraft.  Monophyly and Phylogenetic Relationships of the Pelecaniformes: A Numerical Cladistic Analysis , 1985 .

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

[63]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance , 1981 .

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