Evaluating UCE Data Adequacy and Integrating Uncertainty in a Comprehensive Phylogeny of Ants

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Systematic Biology Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI:10.1093/sysbio/syaf001
Marek L Borowiec, Y Miles Zhang, Karen Neves, Manuela O Ramalho, Brian L Fisher, Andrea Lucky, Corrie S Moreau
{"title":"Evaluating UCE Data Adequacy and Integrating Uncertainty in a Comprehensive Phylogeny of Ants","authors":"Marek L Borowiec, Y Miles Zhang, Karen Neves, Manuela O Ramalho, Brian L Fisher, Andrea Lucky, Corrie S Moreau","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syaf001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While some relationships in phylogenomic studies have remained stable since the Sanger sequencing era, many challenging nodes remain, even with genome-scale data. Incongruence or lack of resolution in the phylogenomic era is frequently attributed to inadequate data modeling and analytical issues that lead to systematic biases. However, few studies investigate the potential for random error or establish expectations for the level of resolution achievable with a given empirical dataset and integrate uncertainties across methods when faced with conflicting results. Ants are the most species-rich lineage of social insects and one of the most ecologically important terrestrial animals. Consequently, ants have garnered significant research attention, including their systematics. Despite this, there has been no comprehensive genus-level phylogeny of the ants inferred using genomic data that thoroughly evaluates both signal strength and incongruence. In this study, we provide insight into and quantify uncertainty across the ant tree of life by utilizing the most taxonomically comprehensive Ultraconserved Elements dataset of ants to date, including 277 (81%) of recognized ant genera from all 16 extant subfamilies, and representing over 98% of described species. We use simulations to establish expectations for resolution, identify branches with less-than-expected concordance, and dissect the effects of data and model selection on recalcitrant nodes. Simulations show that hundreds of loci are needed to resolve recalcitrant nodes on our genus-level ant phylogeny. This demonstrates the continued role of random error in phylogenomic studies. Our analyses provide a comprehensive picture of support and incongruence across the ant phylogeny, while offering a more nuanced depiction of uncertainty and significantly expanding generic sampling. We use a consensus approach to integrate uncertainty across different analyses and find that assumptions about root age exert substantial influence on divergence dating. Our results suggest that advancing the understanding of ant phylogeny will require not only more data but also more refined phylogenetic models. We also provide a workflow for identifying under-supported nodes in concatenation analyses, outline a pragmatic way to reconcile conflicting results in phylogenomics, and introduce a user-friendly locus selection tool for divergence dating.","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","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/syaf001","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

While some relationships in phylogenomic studies have remained stable since the Sanger sequencing era, many challenging nodes remain, even with genome-scale data. Incongruence or lack of resolution in the phylogenomic era is frequently attributed to inadequate data modeling and analytical issues that lead to systematic biases. However, few studies investigate the potential for random error or establish expectations for the level of resolution achievable with a given empirical dataset and integrate uncertainties across methods when faced with conflicting results. Ants are the most species-rich lineage of social insects and one of the most ecologically important terrestrial animals. Consequently, ants have garnered significant research attention, including their systematics. Despite this, there has been no comprehensive genus-level phylogeny of the ants inferred using genomic data that thoroughly evaluates both signal strength and incongruence. In this study, we provide insight into and quantify uncertainty across the ant tree of life by utilizing the most taxonomically comprehensive Ultraconserved Elements dataset of ants to date, including 277 (81%) of recognized ant genera from all 16 extant subfamilies, and representing over 98% of described species. We use simulations to establish expectations for resolution, identify branches with less-than-expected concordance, and dissect the effects of data and model selection on recalcitrant nodes. Simulations show that hundreds of loci are needed to resolve recalcitrant nodes on our genus-level ant phylogeny. This demonstrates the continued role of random error in phylogenomic studies. Our analyses provide a comprehensive picture of support and incongruence across the ant phylogeny, while offering a more nuanced depiction of uncertainty and significantly expanding generic sampling. We use a consensus approach to integrate uncertainty across different analyses and find that assumptions about root age exert substantial influence on divergence dating. Our results suggest that advancing the understanding of ant phylogeny will require not only more data but also more refined phylogenetic models. We also provide a workflow for identifying under-supported nodes in concatenation analyses, outline a pragmatic way to reconcile conflicting results in phylogenomics, and introduce a user-friendly locus selection tool for divergence dating.
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
蚂蚁综合系统发育中UCE数据充分性评估与不确定性整合
虽然自Sanger测序时代以来,系统基因组学研究中的一些关系保持稳定,但即使有基因组规模的数据,仍然存在许多具有挑战性的节点。在系统基因组学时代,不一致或缺乏解决方案通常归因于不充分的数据建模和分析问题,导致系统偏差。然而,很少有研究调查随机误差的可能性或建立对给定经验数据集可实现的分辨率水平的期望,并在面对相互矛盾的结果时整合不同方法的不确定性。蚂蚁是种类最丰富的群居昆虫,也是生态上最重要的陆生动物之一。因此,蚂蚁获得了重要的研究关注,包括它们的分类学。尽管如此,还没有全面的属水平的蚂蚁系统发育推断使用基因组数据,彻底评估信号强度和不一致。在这项研究中,我们利用迄今为止最全面的蚂蚁超保守元素数据集,包括来自所有16个现存亚科的277个(81%)已知的蚂蚁属,代表了98%以上的已描述物种,从而深入了解并量化了蚂蚁生命树的不确定性。我们使用模拟来建立对分辨率的期望,识别一致性低于预期的分支,并剖析数据和模型选择对顽固性节点的影响。模拟表明,在我们的属级蚂蚁系统发育中,需要数百个位点来解决顽抗节点。这证明了随机误差在系统基因组学研究中的持续作用。我们的分析提供了蚂蚁系统发育中支持和不一致的全面图景,同时提供了更细致的不确定性描述和显着扩展的一般抽样。我们使用共识方法来整合不同分析中的不确定性,并发现关于根龄的假设对分歧定年有实质性影响。我们的研究结果表明,推进对蚂蚁系统发育的理解不仅需要更多的数据,还需要更完善的系统发育模型。我们还提供了一个在串联分析中识别欠支持节点的工作流程,概述了一种实用的方法来调和系统基因组学中相互矛盾的结果,并介绍了一个用户友好的基因座选择工具来进行差异定年。
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 phylogenetic approach to delimitate species in a probabilistic way Dating the bacterial tree of life based on ancient symbiosis. Inference of multiple mergers while dating a pathogen phylogeny Integrating Deep Learning Derived Morphological Traits and Molecular Data for Total-Evidence Phylogenetics: Lessons from Digitized Collections. Punctuated versus gradual shifts in the multivariate evolutionary process: a test with paired radiations of scincid lizards
×
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