Model adequacy tests for probabilistic models of chromosome-number evolution.
chromEvol
chromosome number
dysploidy
model adequacy
model selection
model testing
phylogenetics
polyploidy
Journal
The New phytologist
ISSN: 1469-8137
Titre abrégé: New Phytol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9882884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
02
08
2020
accepted:
18
11
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
23
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Chromosome number is a central feature of eukaryote genomes. Deciphering patterns of chromosome-number change along a phylogeny is central to the inference of whole genome duplications and ancestral chromosome numbers. ChromEvol is a probabilistic inference tool that allows the evaluation of several models of chromosome-number evolution and their fit to the data. However, fitting a model does not necessarily mean that the model describes the empirical data adequately. This vulnerability may lead to incorrect conclusions when model assumptions are not met by real data. Here, we present a model adequacy test for likelihood models of chromosome-number evolution. The procedure allows us to determine whether the model can generate data with similar characteristics as those found in the observed ones. We demonstrate that using inadequate models can lead to inflated errors in several inference tasks. Applying the developed method to 200 angiosperm genera, we find that in many of these, the best-fitting model provides poor fit to the data. The inadequacy rate increases in large clades or in those in which hybridizations are present. The developed model adequacy test can help researchers to identify phylogenies whose underlying evolutionary patterns deviate substantially from current modelling assumptions and should guide future methods development.
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
3602-3613Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors New Phytologist © 2020 New Phytologist Foundation.
Références
Abadi S, Azouri D, Pupko T, Mayrose I. 2019. Model selection may not be a mandatory step for phylogeny reconstruction. Nature Communications 10: 1-11.
Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19: 716-723.
Barker MS, Arrigo N, Baniaga AE, Li Z, Levin DA. 2016. On the relative abundance of autopolyploids and allopolyploids. New Phytologist 210: 391-398.
Beaulieu JM, O’Meara BC, Donoghue MJ. 2013. Identifying hidden rate changes in the evolution of a binary morphological character: The evolution of plant habit in campanulid angiosperms. Systematic Biology 62: 725-737.
Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. 2013. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research 41: 36-42.
Blackmon H, Demuth JP. 2014. Estimating tempo and mode of Y chromosome turnover: explaining Y chromosome loss with the fragile Y hypothesis. Genetics 197: 561-572.
Blackmon H, Justison J, Mayrose I, Goldberg EE. 2019. Meiotic drive shapes rates of karyotype evolution in mammals. Evolution 73: 511-523.
Bollback JP. 2002. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1171-1180.
Brown JM. 2014. Detection of implausible phylogenetic inferences using posterior predictive assessment of model fit. Systematic Biology 63: 334-348.
Brown JM, Thomson RC. 2018. Evaluating model performance in evolutionary biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 49: 95-114.
Carta A, Bedini G, Peruzzi L. 2018. Unscrambling phylogenetic effects and ecological determinants of chromosome number in major angiosperm clades. Scientific Reports 8: 1-14.
Chen W, Kenney T, Bielawski J, Gu H. 2019. Testing adequacy for DNA substitution models. BMC Bioinformatics 20: 349.
Drori M, Rice A, Einhorn M, Chay O, Glick L, Mayrose I. 2018. OneTwoTree: an online tool for phylogeny reconstruction. Molecular Ecology Resources 18: 1492-1499.
Duchêne DA, Duchêne S, Holmes EC, Ho SYW. 2015. Evaluating the adequacy of molecular clock models using posterior predictive simulations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32: 2986-2995.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1994. An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Farris JS. 1970. Methods for computing Wagner trees. Systematic Biology 19: 83-92.
Fitch WM. 1971. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Systematic Zoology 20: 406.
Freyman WA, Höhna S. 2017. Cladogenetic and anagenetic models of chromosome number evolution: a Bayesian model averaging approach. Systematic Biology 67: 195-215.
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. 2013. Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis.
Glick L, Mayrose I. 2014. ChromEvol: assessing the pattern of chromosome number evolution and the inference of polyploidy along a phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 31: 1914-1922.
Glick L, Sabath N, Ashman T-L, Goldberg E, Mayrose I. 2016. Polyploidy and sexual system in angiosperms: is there an association? American Journal of Botany 103: 1223-1235.
Goldman N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 36: 182-198.
Guerra M. 2008. Chromosome numbers in plant cytotaxonomy: concepts and implications. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 120: 339-350.
Hallinan NM, Lindberg DR. 2011. Comparative analysis of chromosome counts infers three paleopolyploidies in the mollusca. Genome Biology and Evolution 3: 1150-1163.
Höhna S, Coghill LM, Mount GG, Thomson RC, Brown JM. 2018. P3: Phylogenetic posterior prediction in RevBayes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35: 1028-1034.
Khandelwal S. 1990. Chromosome evolution in the genus Ophioglossum L. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 102: 205-217.
Leitch AR, Leitch IJ. 2008. Genomic plasticity and the diversity of polyploid plants. Science 320: 481-483.
Levin D. 1983. Polyploidy and novelty in flowering plants. American Naturalist 122: 1-25.
Márquez-Corro JI, Martín-Bravo S, Spalink D, Luceño M, Escudero M. 2019. Inferring hypothesis-based transitions in clade-specific models of chromosome number evolution in sedges (Cyperaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 135: 203-209.
Mayrose I, Barker MS, Otto SP. 2010. Probabilistic models of chromosome number evolution and the inference of polyploidy. Systematic Biology 59: 132-144.
Nakhleh L. 2010. Evolutionary phylogenetic networks: models and issues. In: Heath LS, Ramakrishnan N, eds. Problem solving handbook in computational biology and bioinformatics. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 125-158 .
Pennell MW, FitzJohn RG, Cornwell WK, Harmon LJ. 2015. Model adequacy and the macroevolution of angiosperm functional traits. The American Naturalist 186: E33-E50.
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ramsey J, Ramsey TS. 2014. Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 369: 1-20.
Ramsey J, Schemske DW. 2002. Neopolyploidy in flowering plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 589-639.
Rice A, Glick L, Abadi S, Einhorn M, Kopelman NM, Salman-Minkov A, Mayzel J, Chay O, Mayrose I. 2015. The Chromosome Counts Database (CCDB) - a community resource of plant chromosome numbers. New Phytologist 206: 19-26.
Rice A, Šmarda P, Novosolov M, Drori M, Glick L, Sabath N, Meiri S, Belmaker J, Mayrose I. 2019. The global biogeography of polyploid plants. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 265-273.
Ruffini Castiglione M, Cremonini R. 2012. A fascinating island: 2n = 4. Plant Biosystems 146: 711-726.
Salman-Minkov A, Sabath N, Mayrose I. 2016. Whole-genome duplication as a key factor in crop domestication. Nature Plants 2: 1-4.
Shannon CE. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423.
Slater GJ, Pennell MW. 2013. Robust regression and posterior predictive simulation increase power to detect early bursts of trait evolution. Systematic Biology 63: 293-308.
Soltis D, Soltis P, Schemske D. 2007. Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: have we grossly underestimated the number of species? Taxon 56: 13-30.
Soltis DE, Visger CJ, Marchant DB, Soltis PS. 2016. Polyploidy: pitfalls and paths to a paradigm. American Journal of Botany 103: 1146-1166.
Spoelhof JP, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2017. Pure polyploidy: closing the gaps in autopolyploid research. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 55: 340-352.
Stebbins GL. 1971. Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. London, UK: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Vershinina AO, Lukhtanov VA. 2017. Evolutionary mechanisms of runaway chromosome number change in Agrodiaetus butterflies. Scientific Reports 7: 1-9.
Weiss-Schneeweiss H, Schneeweiss GM. 2013. Karyotype diversity and evolutionary trends in angiosperms. In: Greilhuber J, Dolezel J, Wendel JF, eds. Plant genome diversity, vol. 2. Vienna, Austria: Springer, 209-230.
Wendel JF. 2015. The wondrous cycles of polyploidy in plants. American Journal of Botany 102: 1753-1756.
Wood TE, Takebayashi N, Barker MS, Mayrose I, Greenspoon PB, Rieseberg LH. 2009. The frequency of polyploid speciation in vascular plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106: 13875-13879.
Zenil-Ferguson R, Burleigh JG, Freyman WA, Igić B, Mayrose I, Goldberg EE. 2019. Interaction among ploidy, breeding system and lineage diversification. New Phytologist 224: 1252-1265.
Zenil-Ferguson R, Burleigh JG, Ponciano JM. 2018. chromploid: An R package for chromosome number evolution across the plant tree of life. Applications in Plant Sciences 6: e1037.
Zenil-Ferguson R, Ponciano JM, Burleigh JG. 2017. Testing the association of phenotypes with polyploidy: an example using herbaceous and woody eudicots. Evolution 71: 1138-1148.
Zhan SH, Drori M, Goldberg EE, Otto SP, Mayrose I. 2016. Phylogenetic evidence for cladogenetic polyploidization in land plants. American Journal of Botany 103: 1252-1258.