Inferring Phylogenetic Networks with Maximum Pseudolikelihood under Incomplete Lineage Sorting

Abstract

Phylogenetic networks are necessary to represent the tree of life expanded by edges to represent events such as horizontal gene transfers, hybridizations or gene flow. Not all species follow the paradigm of vertical inheritance of their genetic material. While a great deal of research has flourished into the inference of phylogenetic trees, statistical methods to infer phylogenetic networks are still limited and under development. The main disadvantage of existing methods is a lack of scalability. Here, we present a statistical method to infer phylogenetic networks from multi-locus genetic data in a pseudolikelihood framework. Our model accounts for incomplete lineage sorting through the coalescent model, and for horizontal inheritance of genes through reticulation nodes in the network. Computation of the pseudolikelihood is fast and simple, and it avoids the burdensome calculation of the full likelihood which can be intractable with many species. Moreover, estimation at the quartet-level has the added computational benefit that it is easily parallelizable. Simulation studies comparing our method to a full likelihood approach show that our pseudolikelihood approach is much faster without compromising accuracy. We applied our method to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships among swordtails and platyfishes (Xiphophorus: Poeciliidae), which is characterized by widespread hybridizations.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 47

1. 1.

   Huson D, Rupp R, Scornavacca C. 2010 Phylogenetic Networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1st edition.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Spillner A, Bastkowski S, Moulton V, Grünewald S, Bögershausen A. 2013 SuperQ: computing supernetworks from quartets. IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics / IEEE, ACM. 10:151–60.

   Not in our library10.1109/tcbb.2013.8 (opens in a new tab)

3. 3.
   PhyloNet: a software package for analyzing and reconstructing reticulate evolutionary relationships · 2008

   No notice
4. 4.

   Yang J, Grünewald S, Xu Y, Wan XF. 2014 Quartet-based methods to reconstruct phylogenetic networks. BMC systems biology. 8:21

   Not in our library10.1186/1752-0509-8-21 (opens in a new tab)

5. 5.

   Gambette P, Berry V, Paul C. 2012 Quartets and unrooted phylogenetic networks. J Bioinform Comput Biol, 10(4):1250004

   Not in our library10.1142/s0219720012500047 (opens in a new tab)

6. 6.

   Meng C, Kubatko LS. 2009 Detecting hybrid speciation in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting using gene tree incongruence: a model. Theoretical population biology. 75:35–45.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.tpb.2008.10.004 (opens in a new tab)

7. 7.

   Strimmer K, Moulton V. 2000 Likelihood analysis of phylogenetic networks using directed graphical models. Molecular biology and evolution. 17:875–81.

   Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026367 (opens in a new tab)

8. 8.
   The Probability of a Gene Tree Topology within a Phylogenetic Network with Applications to Hybridization Detection · 2012

   No notice
9. 9.

   Yu Y, Dong J, Liu KJ, Nakhleh L. 2014 Maximum Likelihood Inference of Reticulate Evolutionary Histories. PNAS. 111:16448–16453.

   Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1407950111 (opens in a new tab)

10. 10.

    Nguyen Q, Roos T. 2015 Likelihood-based inference of phylogenetic networks from sequence data by PhyloDAG. in Proc. 2nd International Conference on Algorithms for Computational Biology, LNBI 9199, Springer, pp126–140.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Cui R, Schumer M, Kruesi K, Walter R, Andolfatto P, Rosenthal GG. 2013 Phylogenomics reveals extensive reticulate evolution in Xiphophorus fishes. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution. 67:2166–79.

    Not in our library10.1111/evo.12099 (opens in a new tab)

12. 12.

    Francis AR, Steel M. 2015 Which Phylogenetic Networks are Merely Trees with Additional Arcs? Systematic Biology. 64(5):768–777.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syv037 (opens in a new tab)

13. 13.
    A maximum pseudo-likelihood approach for estimating species trees under the coalescent model · 2010

    No notice
14. 14.

    Baum DA. 2007 Concordance trees, concordance factors, and the exploration of reticulate genealogy. Taxon. 56:417–426.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Ané C. 2010 Reconstructing concordance trees and testing the coalescent model from genome-wide data sets Chapter 3, p.35–52 in “Estimating species trees: Practical and theoretical aspects”, Knowles L. and Kubatko L., eds. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Allman ES, Degnan JH, Rhodes JA. 2011 Identifying the rooted species tree from the distribution of unrooted gene trees under the coalescent, J. Math. Biol.. 62(6):833–862.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00285-010-0355-7 (opens in a new tab)

17. 17.

    Grayson DR, Stillman ME. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry, available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Allman ES, Ané C, Rhodes JA. 2008 Identifiability of a Markovian model of molecular evolution with Gamma-distributed rates. Adv. in Appl. Probab. 40(1):229–249.

    Not in our library10.1239/aap/1208358894 (opens in a new tab)

19. 19.

    Allman ES, Rhodes JA. 2009 The Identifiability of Covarion Models in Phylogenetics, IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 6(1):76–88.

    Not in our library10.1109/tcbb.2008.52 (opens in a new tab)

20. 20.
    Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-Wide Allele Frequency Data · 2012

    No notice
21. 21.

    Bezanson J, Edelman A, Karpinski S, Shah VB. 2014. Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1607

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Mirarab S, Reaz R, Bayzid MS, Zimmermann T, Swenson MS, Warnow T. 2014 ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics. 30:i541–i548.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btu462 (opens in a new tab)

23. 23.

    Avni E, Cohen R and Snir S. 2015 Weighted quartets phylogenetics, Systematic Biology, 64(2):233–242.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syu087 (opens in a new tab)

24. 24.

    Snir S, Rao S. 2012 Quartet MaxCut: A fast algorithm for amalgamating quartet trees, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 62(1):1–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ympev.2011.06.021 (opens in a new tab)

25. 25.

    Huber KT, Linz S, Moulton V, Wu T. 2015 Spaces of phylogenetic networks from generalized nearest-neighbor interchange operations. Journal of Mathematical Biology. In press.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00285-015-0899-7 (opens in a new tab)

26. 26.

    Larget B, Kotha SK, Dewey CN, Ané C. 2010 BUCKy: Gene tree / species tree reconciliation with Bayesian concordance analysis, Bioinformatics, 26(22):2910–2911.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btq539 (opens in a new tab)

27. 27.

    Ané C, Larget B, Baum DA, Smith SD, Rokas A. 2007 Bayesian estimation of concordance among gene trees. Molecular biology and evolution. 24:412–26.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msl170 (opens in a new tab)

28. 28.

    Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003 MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models, Bioinformatics 19:15721574

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 (opens in a new tab)

29. 29.

    Stamatakis A. 2014 RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:13121313

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 (opens in a new tab)

30. 30.

    Hudson RR. 2002 Generating samples under a Wright-Fisher neutral model of genetic variation. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 18:337–338.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/18.2.337 (opens in a new tab)

31. 31.

    Rambaut A, Grassly NC. 1997 Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235–238.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/13.3.235 (opens in a new tab)

32. 32.

    Stenz N, Larget B, Baum DA, Ané C. 2015 Exploring tree-like and non-tree-like patterns using genome sequences: and example using the inbreeding plant species Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Systematic Biology. 64(5):809–823.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syv039 (opens in a new tab)

33. 33.

    Nakhleh L. 2010 A metric on the space of reduced phylogenetic networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 7:218–222.

    Not in our library10.1109/tcbb.2009.2 (opens in a new tab)

34. 34.

    Solís-Lemus, C., M. Yang, and C. Ané. 2015. Inconsistency of species-tree methods under gene flow. Systematic Biology, accepted pending revisions.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syw030 (opens in a new tab)

35. 35.

    Durand EY, Patterson N, Reich D, Slatkin M. 2011 Testing for ancient admixture between closely related populations, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 28:2239–2252.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msr048 (opens in a new tab)

36. 36.

    Clark AG, Messer PW. 2015 Conundrum of jumbled mosquito genomes, Science 347(6217):27–28.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa3600 (opens in a new tab)

37. 37.

    Fontaine MC et al 2015 Extensive introgression in a malaria vector species complex revealed by phylogenomics, Science 347(6217):1258524

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1258524 (opens in a new tab)

38. 38.

    Jónsson MS et al 2014 Speciation with gene flow in equids despite extensive chromosomal plasticity, PNAS 111(52):18655–18660

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1412627111 (opens in a new tab)

39. 39.
    Inference of Ancestral Recombination Graphs through Topological Data Analysis. · 2016

    Not checked
40. 40.

    Pardi F, Scornavacca C. 2015 Reconstructible Phylogenetic Networks: Do Not Distinguish the Indistinguishable. PLOS Computational Biology. 11:e1004135

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004135 (opens in a new tab)

Cited by papers we hold 2

• Phylogenomic approaches to detecting and characterizing introgression · 2021
  No notice
• A Bayesian Implementation of the Multispecies Coalescent Model with Introgression for Phylogenomic Analysis · 2019
  No notice

Questions about this paper

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.