The influence of the number of tree searches on maximum likelihood inference in phylogenomics

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Systematic Biology Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1093/sysbio/syae031
Chao Liu, Xiaofan Zhou, Yuanning Li, Chris Todd Hittinger, Ronghui Pan, Jinyan Huang, Xue-xin Chen, Antonis Rokas, Yun Chen, Xing-Xing Shen
{"title":"The influence of the number of tree searches on maximum likelihood inference in phylogenomics","authors":"Chao Liu, Xiaofan Zhou, Yuanning Li, Chris Todd Hittinger, Ronghui Pan, Jinyan Huang, Xue-xin Chen, Antonis Rokas, Yun Chen, Xing-Xing Shen","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syae031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic inference is widely used in phylogenomics. As heuristic searches most likely find suboptimal trees, it is recommended to conduct multiple (e.g., ten) tree searches in phylogenetic analyses. However, beyond its positive role, how and to what extent multiple tree searches aid ML phylogenetic inference remains poorly explored. Here, we found that a random starting tree was not as effective as the BioNJ and parsimony starting trees in inferring ML gene tree and that RAxML-NG and PhyML were less sensitive to different starting trees than IQ-TREE. We then examined the effect of the number of tree searches on ML tree inference with IQ-TREE and RAxML-NG, by running 100 tree searches on 19,414 gene alignments from 15 animal, plant, and fungal phylogenomic datasets. We found that the number of tree searches substantially impacted the recovery of the best-of-100 ML gene tree topology among 100 searches for a given ML program. In addition, all of the concatenation-based trees were topologically identical if the number of tree searches was ≥ 10. Quartet-based ASTRAL trees inferred from 1 to 80 tree searches differed topologically from those inferred from 100 tree searches for 6 /15 phylogenomic datasets. Lastly, our simulations showed that gene alignments with lower difficulty scores had a higher chance of finding the best-of-100 gene tree topology and were more likely to yield the correct trees.","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syae031","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic inference is widely used in phylogenomics. As heuristic searches most likely find suboptimal trees, it is recommended to conduct multiple (e.g., ten) tree searches in phylogenetic analyses. However, beyond its positive role, how and to what extent multiple tree searches aid ML phylogenetic inference remains poorly explored. Here, we found that a random starting tree was not as effective as the BioNJ and parsimony starting trees in inferring ML gene tree and that RAxML-NG and PhyML were less sensitive to different starting trees than IQ-TREE. We then examined the effect of the number of tree searches on ML tree inference with IQ-TREE and RAxML-NG, by running 100 tree searches on 19,414 gene alignments from 15 animal, plant, and fungal phylogenomic datasets. We found that the number of tree searches substantially impacted the recovery of the best-of-100 ML gene tree topology among 100 searches for a given ML program. In addition, all of the concatenation-based trees were topologically identical if the number of tree searches was ≥ 10. Quartet-based ASTRAL trees inferred from 1 to 80 tree searches differed topologically from those inferred from 100 tree searches for 6 /15 phylogenomic datasets. Lastly, our simulations showed that gene alignments with lower difficulty scores had a higher chance of finding the best-of-100 gene tree topology and were more likely to yield the correct trees.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统发生组学中树搜索次数对最大似然推断的影响
最大似然(ML)系统发育推断被广泛应用于系统发生组学中。由于启发式搜索很可能找到次优树,因此建议在系统发生学分析中进行多次(如十次)树搜索。然而,除了多树搜索的积极作用外,多树搜索如何以及在多大程度上帮助了 ML 系统发育推断,目前仍未得到深入探讨。在这里,我们发现随机起始树在推断 ML 基因树方面不如 BioNJ 和解析起始树有效,RAxML-NG 和 PhyML 对不同起始树的敏感性也不如 IQ-TREE。然后,我们对来自 15 个动物、植物和真菌系统发生组数据集的 19,414 条基因排列进行了 100 次树搜索,检验了树搜索次数对 IQ-TREE 和 RAxML-NG 的 ML 树推断的影响。我们发现,对于特定的 ML 程序,树搜索的次数对 100 次搜索中最佳 ML 基因树拓扑的恢复有很大影响。此外,如果树搜索次数≥10,所有基于连接的树在拓扑上都是相同的。在 6 /15 个系统发生组数据集中,通过 1 至 80 次树搜索推断出的基于四元组的 ASTRAL 树与通过 100 次树搜索推断出的树在拓扑结构上存在差异。最后,我们的模拟结果表明,难度分数较低的基因排列有更高的几率找到百佳基因树拓扑,而且更有可能得到正确的基因树。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Biology
Systematic Biology 生物-进化生物学
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Biology is the bimonthly journal of the Society of Systematic Biologists. Papers for the journal are original contributions to the theory, principles, and methods of systematics as well as phylogeny, evolution, morphology, biogeography, paleontology, genetics, and the classification of all living things. A Points of View section offers a forum for discussion, while book reviews and announcements of general interest are also featured.
期刊最新文献
The limits of the metapopulation: Lineage fragmentation in a widespread terrestrial salamander (Plethodon cinereus) Dating in the Dark: Elevated Substitution Rates in Cave Cockroaches (Blattodea: Nocticolidae) Have Negative Impacts on Molecular Date Estimates. Clockor2: Inferring Global and Local Strict Molecular Clocks Using Root-to-Tip Regression. Phylogenomics of Neogastropoda: The Backbone Hidden in the Bush. Distinguishing Cophylogenetic Signal from Phylogenetic Congruence Clarifies the Interplay Between Evolutionary History and Species Interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1