利用拓扑结构和分支长度信息检测鬼怪进化

IF 6.1 1区 生物学 Q1 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Systematic Biology Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1093/sysbio/syad077
Xiao-Xu Pang, Da-Yong Zhang
{"title":"利用拓扑结构和分支长度信息检测鬼怪进化","authors":"Xiao-Xu Pang, Da-Yong Zhang","doi":"10.1093/sysbio/syad077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, the study of hybridization and introgression has made significant progress, with ghost introgression-the transfer of genetic material from extinct or unsampled lineages to extant species-emerging as a key area for research. Accurately identifying ghost introgression, however, presents a challenge. To address this issue, we focused on simple cases involving 3 species with a known phylogenetic tree. Using mathematical analyses and simulations, we evaluated the performance of popular phylogenetic methods, including HyDe and PhyloNet/MPL, and the full-likelihood method, Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP), in detecting ghost introgression. Our findings suggest that heuristic approaches relying on site-pattern counts or gene-tree topologies struggle to differentiate ghost introgression from introgression between sampled non-sister species, frequently leading to incorrect identification of donor and recipient species. The full-likelihood method BPP uses multilocus sequence alignments directly-hence taking into account both gene-tree topologies and branch lengths, by contrast, is capable of detecting ghost introgression in phylogenomic datasets. We analyzed a real-world phylogenomic dataset of 14 species of Jaltomata (Solanaceae) to showcase the potential of full-likelihood methods for accurate inference of introgression.</p>","PeriodicalId":22120,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Biology","volume":" ","pages":"207-222"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detection of Ghost Introgression Requires Exploiting Topological and Branch Length Information.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao-Xu Pang, Da-Yong Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sysbio/syad077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, the study of hybridization and introgression has made significant progress, with ghost introgression-the transfer of genetic material from extinct or unsampled lineages to extant species-emerging as a key area for research. Accurately identifying ghost introgression, however, presents a challenge. To address this issue, we focused on simple cases involving 3 species with a known phylogenetic tree. Using mathematical analyses and simulations, we evaluated the performance of popular phylogenetic methods, including HyDe and PhyloNet/MPL, and the full-likelihood method, Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP), in detecting ghost introgression. Our findings suggest that heuristic approaches relying on site-pattern counts or gene-tree topologies struggle to differentiate ghost introgression from introgression between sampled non-sister species, frequently leading to incorrect identification of donor and recipient species. The full-likelihood method BPP uses multilocus sequence alignments directly-hence taking into account both gene-tree topologies and branch lengths, by contrast, is capable of detecting ghost introgression in phylogenomic datasets. We analyzed a real-world phylogenomic dataset of 14 species of Jaltomata (Solanaceae) to showcase the potential of full-likelihood methods for accurate inference of introgression.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"207-222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129598/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syad077\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syad077","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

摘要

近年来,杂交和引种研究取得了重大进展,其中鬼魂引种--已灭绝或未取样种系的遗传物质向现存物种的转移--成为一个重要的研究领域。然而,准确识别幽灵引入是一项挑战。为了解决这个问题,我们重点研究了涉及已知系统发生树的三个物种的简单案例。通过数学分析和模拟,我们评估了流行的系统发生学方法(包括 HyDe 和 PhyloNet/MPL)和全似然法(贝叶斯系统发生学和系统地理学,Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP))在检测幽灵引入方面的性能。我们的研究结果表明,依靠位点模式计数或基因树拓扑结构的启发式方法难以区分幽灵引种和取样非姊妹物种之间的引种,经常导致供体和受体物种的错误鉴定。相比之下,直接使用多焦点序列比对的全似然方法 BPP,同时考虑了基因树拓扑和分支长度,能够检测出系统发生组数据集中的幽灵引入。我们分析了现实世界中 14 种茄科植物的系统发生组数据集,以展示全似然方法在准确推断引入方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Detection of Ghost Introgression Requires Exploiting Topological and Branch Length Information.

In recent years, the study of hybridization and introgression has made significant progress, with ghost introgression-the transfer of genetic material from extinct or unsampled lineages to extant species-emerging as a key area for research. Accurately identifying ghost introgression, however, presents a challenge. To address this issue, we focused on simple cases involving 3 species with a known phylogenetic tree. Using mathematical analyses and simulations, we evaluated the performance of popular phylogenetic methods, including HyDe and PhyloNet/MPL, and the full-likelihood method, Bayesian Phylogenetics and Phylogeography (BPP), in detecting ghost introgression. Our findings suggest that heuristic approaches relying on site-pattern counts or gene-tree topologies struggle to differentiate ghost introgression from introgression between sampled non-sister species, frequently leading to incorrect identification of donor and recipient species. The full-likelihood method BPP uses multilocus sequence alignments directly-hence taking into account both gene-tree topologies and branch lengths, by contrast, is capable of detecting ghost introgression in phylogenomic datasets. We analyzed a real-world phylogenomic dataset of 14 species of Jaltomata (Solanaceae) to showcase the potential of full-likelihood methods for accurate inference of introgression.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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