Divergence time estimation of Galliformes based on the best gene shopping scheme of ultraconserved elements.
Data heterogeneity
Fossil calibration
Galliformes
Molecular dating
PartitionFinder
Phylogenomics
Ultraconserved elements
Journal
BMC ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2730-7182
Titre abrégé: BMC Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101775613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 11 2021
22 11 2021
Historique:
received:
06
08
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
entrez:
23
11
2021
pubmed:
24
11
2021
medline:
25
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Divergence time estimation is fundamental to understanding many aspects of the evolution of organisms, such as character evolution, diversification, and biogeography. With the development of sequence technology, improved analytical methods, and knowledge of fossils for calibration, it is possible to obtain robust molecular dating results. However, while phylogenomic datasets show great promise in phylogenetic estimation, the best ways to leverage the large amounts of data for divergence time estimation has not been well explored. A potential solution is to focus on a subset of data for divergence time estimation, which can significantly reduce the computational burdens and avoid problems with data heterogeneity that may bias results. In this study, we obtained thousands of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) from 130 extant galliform taxa, including representatives of all genera, to determine the divergence times throughout galliform history. We tested the effects of different "gene shopping" schemes on divergence time estimation using a carefully, and previously validated, set of fossils. Our results found commonly used clock-like schemes may not be suitable for UCE dating (or other data types) where some loci have little information. We suggest use of partitioning (e.g., PartitionFinder) and selection of tree-like partitions may be good strategies to select a subset of data for divergence time estimation from UCEs. Our galliform time tree is largely consistent with other molecular clock studies of mitochondrial and nuclear loci. With our increased taxon sampling, a well-resolved topology, carefully vetted fossil calibrations, and suitable molecular dating methods, we obtained a high quality galliform time tree. We provide a robust galliform backbone time tree that can be combined with more fossil records to further facilitate our understanding of the evolution of Galliformes and can be used as a resource for comparative and biogeographic studies in this group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Divergence time estimation is fundamental to understanding many aspects of the evolution of organisms, such as character evolution, diversification, and biogeography. With the development of sequence technology, improved analytical methods, and knowledge of fossils for calibration, it is possible to obtain robust molecular dating results. However, while phylogenomic datasets show great promise in phylogenetic estimation, the best ways to leverage the large amounts of data for divergence time estimation has not been well explored. A potential solution is to focus on a subset of data for divergence time estimation, which can significantly reduce the computational burdens and avoid problems with data heterogeneity that may bias results.
RESULTS
In this study, we obtained thousands of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) from 130 extant galliform taxa, including representatives of all genera, to determine the divergence times throughout galliform history. We tested the effects of different "gene shopping" schemes on divergence time estimation using a carefully, and previously validated, set of fossils. Our results found commonly used clock-like schemes may not be suitable for UCE dating (or other data types) where some loci have little information. We suggest use of partitioning (e.g., PartitionFinder) and selection of tree-like partitions may be good strategies to select a subset of data for divergence time estimation from UCEs. Our galliform time tree is largely consistent with other molecular clock studies of mitochondrial and nuclear loci. With our increased taxon sampling, a well-resolved topology, carefully vetted fossil calibrations, and suitable molecular dating methods, we obtained a high quality galliform time tree.
CONCLUSIONS
We provide a robust galliform backbone time tree that can be combined with more fossil records to further facilitate our understanding of the evolution of Galliformes and can be used as a resource for comparative and biogeographic studies in this group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34809586
doi: 10.1186/s12862-021-01935-1
pii: 10.1186/s12862-021-01935-1
pmc: PMC8609756
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
209Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018 Dec;129:304-314
pubmed: 30201427
Syst Biol. 2018 Sep 1;67(5):901-904
pubmed: 29718447
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 May 17;284(1854):
pubmed: 28469029
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Aug 29;114(35):E7282-E7290
pubmed: 28808022
J Hered. 2011 Jan-Feb;102(1):130-8
pubmed: 20696667
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Aug;24(8):1586-91
pubmed: 17483113
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Apr 16;116(16):7916-7925
pubmed: 30936315
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 May;6(5):361-75
pubmed: 15861208
Syst Biol. 2012 Oct;61(5):717-26
pubmed: 22232343
Sci Adv. 2015 Dec 11;1(11):e1501005
pubmed: 26824065
Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 30;7:12709
pubmed: 27575437
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Apr;2(4):688-696
pubmed: 29531346
Bioinformatics. 2014 Dec 1;30(23):3317-24
pubmed: 25104814
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Mar 1;34(3):772-773
pubmed: 28013191
Syst Biol. 2017 Sep 01;66(5):857-879
pubmed: 28369655
Science. 2015 Sep 25;349(6255):1460
pubmed: 26404820
Science. 2020 Dec 11;370(6522):1343-1348
pubmed: 33303617
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Apr;33(4):1110-25
pubmed: 26715628
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 May;92(2):1174-1188
pubmed: 27062331
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Apr 24;286(1901):20190079
pubmed: 31014217
Curr Biol. 2015 Nov 16;25(22):2939-50
pubmed: 26603774
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42543
pubmed: 22900027
Mol Ecol. 2014 Dec;23(24):5947-65
pubmed: 25290107
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Nat Biotechnol. 2011 May 15;29(7):644-52
pubmed: 21572440
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
BMC Evol Biol. 2014 Apr 17;14:82
pubmed: 24742000
Bioinformatics. 2016 May 1;32(9):1331-7
pubmed: 26733454
Trends Ecol Evol. 2014 Sep;29(9):496-503
pubmed: 25086668
Science. 2004 May 28;304(5675):1321-5
pubmed: 15131266
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Sep 7;281(1790):
pubmed: 25030982
Nature. 2015 Oct 22;526(7574):569-73
pubmed: 26444237
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002 Jun;23(3):408-21
pubmed: 12099795
Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Sep;16(5):1189-203
pubmed: 26391430
Nature. 2012 Nov 15;491(7424):444-8
pubmed: 23123857
BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Nov 08;7:214
pubmed: 17996036
Syst Biol. 2012 Mar;61(2):346-59
pubmed: 22105867
Trends Genet. 2015 Nov;31(11):637-650
pubmed: 26439502
J Anim Ecol. 2016 Nov;85(6):1528-1539
pubmed: 27392151
Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Sep;16(5):1069-83
pubmed: 27241806
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016 Sep;102:320-30
pubmed: 27369454
Science. 2014 Dec 12;346(6215):1320-31
pubmed: 25504713
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2021 May;158:107091
pubmed: 33545275
PeerJ. 2014 Apr 22;2:e361
pubmed: 24795852
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Apr;85:41-9
pubmed: 25681677
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017 Apr;109:217-225
pubmed: 28088402
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Nov;92:155-64
pubmed: 26140861
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019 Jan;130:297-303
pubmed: 30359745
PLoS One. 2018 May 17;13(5):e0197433
pubmed: 29772020
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016 May;98:123-32
pubmed: 26879712
Front Genet. 2019 Nov 29;10:1241
pubmed: 31850081
Syst Biol. 2016 Jul;65(4):612-27
pubmed: 26865273
PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e64312
pubmed: 23741315
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010 Aug;56(2):536-42
pubmed: 20398778
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Jan 4;38(1):108-127
pubmed: 32781465
Bioinformatics. 2016 Mar 1;32(5):786-8
pubmed: 26530724
Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 15;27(6):863-4
pubmed: 21278185