Houston Museum of Natural Science

About: Houston Museum of Natural Science is a archive organization based out in Houston, Texas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Genus. The organization has 513 authors who have published 846 publications receiving 18702 citations.

Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites

Abstract: DNA sequences for the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I in a group of rodents (pocket gophers) and their ectoparasites (chewing lice) provide evidence for cospeciation and reveal different rates of molecular evolution in the hosts and their parasites. The overall rate of nucleotide substitution (both silent and replacement changes) is approximately three times higher in lice, and the rate of synonymous substitution (based on analysis of fourfold degenerate sites) is approximately an order of magnitude greater in lice. The difference in synonymous substitution rate between lice and gophers correlates with a difference of similar magnitude in generation times.

Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference.

Abstract: Until recently, it was believed that complex phylogenies might be extremely difficult to reconstruct due to the phenomenal rate of increase in the number of possible phylogenies as the number of taxa increases. However, Hillis (1996) showed through simulation that, for at least one complex phylogeny of angiosperms with 228 taxa, reconstruction was far more accurate than expected, even with relatively modest amounts of DNA sequence data. This led to a flurry of papers on the subject of taxon sampling and phylogenetic reconstruction, with focus quickly shifting from the question of whether complex phylogenies can be reconstructed to whether and how much an existing phylogeny can be improved through increased taxon sampling (Hillis, 1998; Kim, 1998; Poe, 1998; Poe and Swofford, 1999; Pollock and Bruno, 2000; Rannala et al., 1998; Yang, 1998). Although a statistician might intuitively believe that it is generally better (or at least no worse) to increase the amount of data to resolve a question in statistical inference, the benefits of taxon addition for phylogenetic inference remain controversial. Some researchers have argued that taxon addition can decrease accuracy (Kim, 1996,1998), while others believe that increased sampling improves accuracy (Graybeal, 1998; Hillis, 1996, 1998; Murphy et al., 2001; Poe, 1998; Pollock and Bruno, 2000; Pollock et al., 2000; Soltis et al., 1999). The reasons that different papers come to apparently contradictory conclusions deserve careful consideration. An often cited factor affecting the benefits of taxon addition is the phenomenon of long-branch attraction (LBA). Some phylogenetic methods have a bias toward preferential clustering of long branches, leading to erroneous results when those long branches do not actually represent a monophyletic assemblage (Felsenstein, 1978; Hendy and Penny, 1989). This phenomenon has been cited in favor of increased taxon sampling, since sampling can be designed to break up long branches (Hillis, 1998). However, increased sampling has also been implicated as a potential cause of LBA because addition of a new long branch may wrongly attract a pre-existing long branch that had previously been inferred correctly (Poe and Swofford, 1999; Rannala et al., 1998). LBA may also explain some simulations that have found problems in phylogeny estimation when sampling outside the taxonomic group of interest (but see Pollock and Bruno [2000] for an alternative explanation). Outside sampling in these simulations tended to add long branches, which tended to attract the longest unbroken branch in the group of interest (Hillis, 1998; Rannala et al., 1998). The degree to which LBA is a problem depends greatly on the method of analysis, and LBA is much less of a problem for maximum likelihood (ML) than for parsimony or distance methods (Bruno and Halpern, 1999). A recent paper on the subject of taxon addition (Rosenberg and Kumar, 2001) concludes that increased taxon sampling is of little benefit to phylogenetic inference when compared to increasing sequence length. We disagree with their interpretation and believe that their data support the importance of increased taxon sampling. In addition, some of their data were simulated under extreme conditions (i.e., substitution rates that were very high or low, or sequences that were unreasonably short). Large error values and nonlinear relationships at these extremes make it difficult to interpret effects for the majority of the range, and averaging across the entire range is inappropriate. Moreover, we do not believe that Rosenberg and Kumar (2001) used the most appropriate metric to measure the relative effect of taxon addition. Our reanalysis of their simulated data indicates that increased taxon sampling is highly beneficial for phylogenetic inference.

Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference

Abstract: Rosenberg and Kumar (2001) addressed the importance of taxon sampling in phylogenetic analysis and concluded that phylogenetic error is “largely independent of taxon sample size” (2001:10756) and that their “results do not provide evidence in favor of adding taxa to problematic phylogenies” (2001:10756). In response to these conclusions, Zwickl and Hillis (2002) and Pollock et al. (2002) conducted additional simulations and reanalyzed the data presented by Rosenberg and Kumar (2001). Zwickl and Hillis and Pollock et al. showed that these conclusions of Rosenberg and Kumar could not be supported either by analyses of their original data or by new simulations that corrected a number of deficiencies in Rosenberg and Kumar’s original experimental design. Both Zwickl and Hillis and Pollock et al. found that increased taxon sampling resulted in greatly reduced phylogenetic estimation error, and Pollock et al. showed that the benefits of increased taxon sampling were similar to adding an equivalent amount of sequence length for the same taxa (in the ranges simulated by Rosenberg and Kumar). In their response, Rosenberg and Kumar (2002) focused on a slightly different conclusion from that in their original paper, which was that “longer sequences, rather than extensive sampling, will better improve the accuracy of phylogenetic inference” (2001:10751). In 2001, Rosenberg and Kumar argued that the beneficial effect of increasing taxa was 10-fold lower than the beneficial effect of increasing sequence length and that the effects of increased taxon sampling for the same genes were negligible (“largely independently” of phylogenetic error). Rosenberg and Kumar (2002) have now concluded that the beneficial effect of increasing taxon sample size is not small, but they suggested that the benefit comes simply from the overall increase in size of the data matrix (the total number of characters × taxa). Furthermore, they maintained that there is a greater benefit to increasing the total sequence length for few taxa than can be obtained by increasing taxon sampling for the same genes. Here, we discuss the two sets of conclusions reached by Rosenberg and Kumar (2001, 2002).

Fifty-Second Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds

Abstract: The Auk, Vol. 128, Number 3, pages 600−613. ISSN 0004-8038, electronic ISSN 1938-4254.  2011 by The American Ornithologists’ Union. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals. com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2011.128.3.600 R. TeRRy ChesseR,1,12,13 RiChaRd C. Banks,1 F. keiTh BaRkeR,2 CaRla CiCeRo,3 Jon l. dunn,4 andRew w. kRaTTeR,5 iRBy J. loveTTe,6 Pamela C. Rasmussen,7 J. v. Remsen, JR.,8 James d. Rising,9 douglas F. sToTz,10 and kevin winkeR11

Why Do Phylogenomic Data Sets Yield Conflicting Trees? Data Type Influences the Avian Tree of Life more than Taxon Sampling.

Abstract: Phylogenomics, the use of large-scale data matrices in phylogenetic analyses, has been viewed as the ultimate solution to the problem of resolving difficult nodes in the tree of life. However, it has become clear that analyses of these large genomic data sets can also result in conflicting estimates of phylogeny. Here, we use the early divergences in Neoaves, the largest clade of extant birds, as a "model system" to understand the basis for incongruence among phylogenomic trees. We were motivated by the observation that trees from two recent avian phylogenomic studies exhibit conflicts. Those studies used different strategies: 1) collecting many characters [$\sim$ 42 mega base pairs (Mbp) of sequence data] from 48 birds, sometimes including only one taxon for each major clade; and 2) collecting fewer characters ($\sim$ 0.4 Mbp) from 198 birds, selected to subdivide long branches. However, the studies also used different data types: the taxon-poor data matrix comprised 68% non-coding sequences whereas coding exons dominated the taxon-rich data matrix. This difference raises the question of whether the primary reason for incongruence is the number of sites, the number of taxa, or the data type. To test among these alternative hypotheses we assembled a novel, large-scale data matrix comprising 90% non-coding sequences from 235 bird species. Although increased taxon sampling appeared to have a positive impact on phylogenetic analyses the most important variable was data type. Indeed, by analyzing different subsets of the taxa in our data matrix we found that increased taxon sampling actually resulted in increased congruence with the tree from the previous taxon-poor study (which had a majority of non-coding data) instead of the taxon-rich study (which largely used coding data). We suggest that the observed differences in the estimates of topology for these studies reflect data-type effects due to violations of the models used in phylogenetic analyses, some of which may be difficult to detect. If incongruence among trees estimated using phylogenomic methods largely reflects problems with model fit developing more "biologically-realistic" models is likely to be critical for efforts to reconstruct the tree of life. [Birds; coding exons; GTR model; model fit; Neoaves; non-coding DNA; phylogenomics; taxon sampling.].