Morphological Characters Can Strongly Influence Early Animal Relationships Inferred from Phylogenomic Data Sets.
Journal
Systematic biology
ISSN: 1076-836X
Titre abrégé: Syst Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9302532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 02 2021
10 02 2021
Historique:
received:
14
11
2018
revised:
27
01
2020
accepted:
29
01
2020
pubmed:
29
5
2020
medline:
19
11
2021
entrez:
29
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are considerable phylogenetic incongruencies between morphological and phylogenomic data for the deep evolution of animals. This has contributed to a heated debate over the earliest-branching lineage of the animal kingdom: the sister to all other Metazoa (SOM). Here, we use published phylogenomic data sets ($\sim $45,000-400,000 characters in size with $\sim $15-100 taxa) that focus on early metazoan phylogeny to evaluate the impact of incorporating morphological data sets ($\sim $15-275 characters). We additionally use small exemplar data sets to quantify how increased taxon sampling can help stabilize phylogenetic inferences. We apply a plethora of common methods, that is, likelihood models and their "equivalent" under parsimony: character weighting schemes. Our results are at odds with the typical view of phylogenomics, that is, that genomic-scale data sets will swamp out inferences from morphological data. Instead, weighting morphological data 2-10$\times $ in both likelihood and parsimony can in some cases "flip" which phylum is inferred to be the SOM. This typically results in the molecular hypothesis of Ctenophora as the SOM flipping to Porifera (or occasionally Placozoa). However, greater taxon sampling improves phylogenetic stability, with some of the larger molecular data sets ($>$200,000 characters and up to $\sim $100 taxa) showing node stability even with $\geqq100\times $ upweighting of morphological data. Accordingly, our analyses have three strong messages. 1) The assumption that genomic data will automatically "swamp out" morphological data is not always true for the SOM question. Morphological data have a strong influence in our analyses of combined data sets, even when outnumbered thousands of times by molecular data. Morphology therefore should not be counted out a priori. 2) We here quantify for the first time how the stability of the SOM node improves for several genomic data sets when the taxon sampling is increased. 3) The patterns of "flipping points" (i.e., the weighting of morphological data it takes to change the inferred SOM) carry information about the phylogenetic stability of matrices. The weighting space is an innovative way to assess comparability of data sets that could be developed into a new sensitivity analysis tool. [Metazoa; Morphology; Phylogenomics; Weighting.].
Identifiants
pubmed: 32462193
pii: 5848016
doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syaa038
pmc: PMC7875439
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
360-375Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists.
Références
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Jan 11;284(1846):
pubmed: 28077778
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8751-6
pubmed: 16731622
Evol Dev. 2001 May-Jun;3(3):170-205
pubmed: 11440251
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1998 Jun;9(3):427-36
pubmed: 9667991
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 11;98(19):10751-6
pubmed: 11526218
Syst Biol. 2017 Sep 01;66(5):857-879
pubmed: 28369655
Nature. 2003 Oct 23;425(6960):798-804
pubmed: 14574403
Syst Biol. 2019 May 1;68(3):494-504
pubmed: 30445627
Curr Biol. 2017 Apr 3;27(7):958-967
pubmed: 28318975
Phys Rev E. 2019 Feb;99(2-1):022424
pubmed: 30934244
Genome Biol Evol. 2012;4(1):30-43
pubmed: 22094860
Protist. 2013 Sep;164(5):598-621
pubmed: 23872341
Nature. 2017 Feb 9;542(7640):186-190
pubmed: 28146470
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 1;112(48):14912-7
pubmed: 26627241
Nature. 2008 Apr 10;452(7188):745-9
pubmed: 18322464
Syst Biol. 2014 May;63(3):334-48
pubmed: 24415681
Science. 2013 Dec 13;342(6164):1242592
pubmed: 24337300
Science. 2017 Nov 17;358(6365):925-928
pubmed: 29146812
Nature. 2008 Aug 21;454(7207):955-60
pubmed: 18719581
PLoS Genet. 2007 Jan 12;3(1):e13
pubmed: 17222063
Brief Bioinform. 2012 Jan;13(1):122-34
pubmed: 21436145
Nat Commun. 2019 Feb 25;10(1):934
pubmed: 30804347
Evolution. 2016 Mar;70(3):666-86
pubmed: 26899622
R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Apr 4;5(4):171707
pubmed: 29765641
Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Nov 1;15(11):454-459
pubmed: 11050348
Am J Bot. 2018 Mar;105(3):433-445
pubmed: 29665035
Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2017 Jan 1;22:873-887
pubmed: 27814652
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Apr;76(4):1967-71
pubmed: 109836
Mol Biol Evol. 1995 Jul;12(4):546-57
pubmed: 7659011
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Jul 31;6(7):190638
pubmed: 31417759
Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Jan;28(1):523-32
pubmed: 20801907
Syst Biol. 2016 Jan;65(1):128-45
pubmed: 26330450
Syst Biol. 2002 Aug;51(4):588-98
pubmed: 12228001
Syst Biol. 2011 Mar;60(2):150-60
pubmed: 21187451
Syst Biol. 2001 Nov-Dec;50(6):913-25
pubmed: 12116640
PLoS Biol. 2009 Jan 27;7(1):e20
pubmed: 19175291
Mol Biol Evol. 2008 May;25(5):821-30
pubmed: 18296416
Mol Biol Evol. 1994 Mar;11(2):316-24
pubmed: 8170371
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 01;9(7):e101341
pubmed: 24984034
Science. 1988 Feb 12;239(4841 Pt 1):748-53
pubmed: 3277277
Cell. 2006 Dec 29;127(7):1453-67
pubmed: 17190607
J Theor Biol. 2015 Jan 7;364:31-9
pubmed: 25218869
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Sep;24(9):2139-50
pubmed: 17652333
Syst Biol. 2019 Jan 1;68(1):145-156
pubmed: 29939341
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54576
pubmed: 23382916
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 May 5;112(18):5773-8
pubmed: 25902535
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Nov 11;368(1632):20130020
pubmed: 24218633
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Oct;69(1):265-75
pubmed: 23764338
BMC Evol Biol. 2005 Oct 06;5:50
pubmed: 16209710
Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jan;20(1):130-4
pubmed: 12519915
Curr Biol. 2009 Apr 28;19(8):706-12
pubmed: 19345102
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 May;22(5):1337-44
pubmed: 15746014
J Theor Biol. 2004 May 7;228(1):97-106
pubmed: 15064085
Bioinformatics. 2008 Oct 15;24(20):2317-23
pubmed: 18718941
Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Apr;18(4):676-80
pubmed: 11264420
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jan;32(1):268-74
pubmed: 25371430
Curr Biol. 2004 Sep 21;14(18):1644-9
pubmed: 15380066
Syst Biol. 2002 Aug;51(4):664-71
pubmed: 12228008
Integr Comp Biol. 2003 Feb;43(1):207-18
pubmed: 21680424
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Jun 1;34(6):1529-1534
pubmed: 28333201
Nature. 2014 Jun 5;510(7503):109-14
pubmed: 24847885
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019 Jan;130:132-142
pubmed: 30321694
J Exp Biol. 2015 Feb 15;218(Pt 4):598-611
pubmed: 25696823
Syst Biol. 2005 Dec;54(6):865-94
pubmed: 16282167
Nat Rev Genet. 2015 Jul;16(7):409-20
pubmed: 26055156
Curr Biol. 2015 Oct 5;25(19):R922-9
pubmed: 26439355
BMC Evol Biol. 2013 Oct 23;13:229
pubmed: 24148262
Elife. 2018 Oct 30;7:
pubmed: 30373720
Trends Ecol Evol. 2015 Jul;30(7):384-9
pubmed: 26014093
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Feb;17(2):109-21
pubmed: 26781812
Syst Biol. 2019 Sep 1;68(5):681-697
pubmed: 30668834
Syst Biol. 2001 Feb;50(1):67-86
pubmed: 12116595
Curr Biol. 2017 Dec 18;27(24):3864-3870.e4
pubmed: 29199080
Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jan 1;16(1):30-37
pubmed: 11146142
Syst Biol. 2006 Aug;55(4):677-85
pubmed: 16969943
PLoS Biol. 2018 Jul 31;16(7):e2005359
pubmed: 30063702
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Apr 10;1(5):126
pubmed: 28812701
Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Sep;27(9):1983-7
pubmed: 20378579
Brain Behav Evol. 2009;74(3):177-90
pubmed: 20029182
Mol Biol Evol. 1995 Nov;12(6):988-1001
pubmed: 8524051