Phylogenetic tree instability after taxon addition: empirical frequency, predictability, and consequences for online inference

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Systematic Biology Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1093/sysbio/syae059
Lena Collienne, Mary Barker, Marc A Suchard, Frederick A Matsen IV
{"title":"Phylogenetic tree instability after taxon addition: empirical frequency, predictability, and consequences for online inference","authors":"Lena Collienne, Mary Barker, Marc A Suchard, Frederick A Matsen IV","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syae059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online phylogenetic inference methods add sequentially arriving sequences to an inferred phylogeny without the need to recompute the entire tree from scratch. Some online method implementations exist already, but there remains concern that additional sequences may change the topological relationship among the original set of taxa. We call such a change in tree topology a lack of stability for the inferred tree. In this paper, we analyze the stability of single taxon addition in a Maximum Likelihood framework across 1, 000 empirical datasets. We find that instability occurs in almost 90% of our examples, although observed topological differences do not always reach significance under the AU-test. Changes in tree topology after addition of a taxon rarely occur close to its attachment location, and are more frequently observed in more distant tree locations carrying low bootstrap support. To investigate whether instability is predictable, we hypothesize sources of instability and design summary statistics addressing these hypotheses. Using these summary statistics as input features for machine learning under random forests, we are able to predict instability and can identify the most influential features. In summary, it does not appear that a strict insertion-only online inference method will deliver globally optimal trees, although relaxing insertion strictness by allowing for a small number of final tree rearrangements or accepting slightly suboptimal solutions appears feasible.","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","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/syae059","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

Online phylogenetic inference methods add sequentially arriving sequences to an inferred phylogeny without the need to recompute the entire tree from scratch. Some online method implementations exist already, but there remains concern that additional sequences may change the topological relationship among the original set of taxa. We call such a change in tree topology a lack of stability for the inferred tree. In this paper, we analyze the stability of single taxon addition in a Maximum Likelihood framework across 1, 000 empirical datasets. We find that instability occurs in almost 90% of our examples, although observed topological differences do not always reach significance under the AU-test. Changes in tree topology after addition of a taxon rarely occur close to its attachment location, and are more frequently observed in more distant tree locations carrying low bootstrap support. To investigate whether instability is predictable, we hypothesize sources of instability and design summary statistics addressing these hypotheses. Using these summary statistics as input features for machine learning under random forests, we are able to predict instability and can identify the most influential features. In summary, it does not appear that a strict insertion-only online inference method will deliver globally optimal trees, although relaxing insertion strictness by allowing for a small number of final tree rearrangements or accepting slightly suboptimal solutions appears feasible.
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
分类群添加后系统发生树的不稳定性:经验频率、可预测性和在线推断的后果
在线系统发育推断方法可将连续到达的序列添加到推断的系统发育中,而无需从头开始重新计算整棵树。目前已经有一些在线方法的实现,但人们仍然担心额外的序列可能会改变原始分类群之间的拓扑关系。我们将这种树拓扑结构的变化称为推断树缺乏稳定性。在本文中,我们在最大似然法框架下分析了 1,000 个经验数据集中单个分类群增加的稳定性。我们发现几乎 90% 的实例都存在不稳定性,尽管在 AU 检验中观察到的拓扑差异并不总是达到显著性。加入一个分类群后,树拓扑结构的变化很少发生在其附着位置附近,而更多地发生在较远的树位置,且引导支持率较低。为了研究不稳定性是否可以预测,我们假设了不稳定性的来源,并针对这些假设设计了汇总统计量。使用这些汇总统计作为随机森林下机器学习的输入特征,我们能够预测不稳定性,并能识别出最有影响力的特征。总之,严格的只插入在线推理方法似乎无法提供全局最优树,不过通过允许少量最终树重新排列或接受略微次优的解决方案来放宽插入的严格性似乎是可行的。
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
A Double-edged Sword: Evolutionary Novelty along Deep-time Diversity Oscillation in An Iconic Group of Predatory Insects (Neuroptera: Mantispoidea) Are Modern Cryptic Species Detectable in the Fossil Record? A Case Study on Agamid Lizards. Bayesian Selection of Relaxed-clock Models: Distinguishing Between Independent and Autocorrelated Rates. Testing relationships between multiple regional features and biogeographic processes of speciation, extinction, and dispersal Robustness of Divergence Time Estimation Despite Gene Tree Estimation Error: A Case Study of Fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae)
×
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