Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review
Abstract The availability of phylogenetic data has greatly expanded in recent years. As a result, a new era in phylogenetic analysis is dawning—one in which the methods we use to analyse and assess our data are the bottleneck to producing valuable phylogenetic hypotheses, rather than the need to acq...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Evolutionary Applications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13565 |
| _version_ | 1797797701581012992 |
|---|---|
| author | James F. Fleming Alberto Valero‐Gracia Torsten H. Struck |
| author_facet | James F. Fleming Alberto Valero‐Gracia Torsten H. Struck |
| author_sort | James F. Fleming |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract The availability of phylogenetic data has greatly expanded in recent years. As a result, a new era in phylogenetic analysis is dawning—one in which the methods we use to analyse and assess our data are the bottleneck to producing valuable phylogenetic hypotheses, rather than the need to acquire more data. This makes the ability to accurately appraise and evaluate new methods of phylogenetic analysis and phylogenetic artefact identification more important than ever. Incongruence in phylogenetic reconstructions based on different datasets may be due to two major sources: biological and methodological. Biological sources comprise processes like horizontal gene transfer, hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting, while methodological ones contain falsely assigned data or violations of the assumptions of the underlying model. While the former provides interesting insights into the evolutionary history of the investigated groups, the latter should be avoided or minimized as best as possible. However, errors introduced by methodology must first be excluded or minimized to be able to conclude that biological sources are the cause. Fortunately, a variety of useful tools exist to help detect such misassignments and model violations and to apply ameliorating measurements. Still, the number of methods and their theoretical underpinning can be overwhelming and opaque. Here, we present a practical and comprehensive review of recent developments in techniques to detect artefacts arising from model violations and poorly assigned data. The advantages and disadvantages of the different methods to detect such misleading signals in phylogenetic reconstructions are also discussed. As there is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution, this review can serve as a guide in choosing the most appropriate detection methods depending on both the actual dataset and the computational power available to the researcher. Ultimately, this informed selection will have a positive impact on the broader field, allowing us to better understand the evolutionary history of the group of interest. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T03:52:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-eb2d048d0afe4e42973c437749d71231 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1752-4571 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T03:52:20Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Evolutionary Applications |
| spelling | doaj.art-eb2d048d0afe4e42973c437749d712312023-06-22T11:28:54ZengWileyEvolutionary Applications1752-45712023-06-011661087110410.1111/eva.13565Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A reviewJames F. Fleming0Alberto Valero‐Gracia1Torsten H. Struck2Natural History Museum University of Oslo Oslo NorwayNatural History Museum University of Oslo Oslo NorwayNatural History Museum University of Oslo Oslo NorwayAbstract The availability of phylogenetic data has greatly expanded in recent years. As a result, a new era in phylogenetic analysis is dawning—one in which the methods we use to analyse and assess our data are the bottleneck to producing valuable phylogenetic hypotheses, rather than the need to acquire more data. This makes the ability to accurately appraise and evaluate new methods of phylogenetic analysis and phylogenetic artefact identification more important than ever. Incongruence in phylogenetic reconstructions based on different datasets may be due to two major sources: biological and methodological. Biological sources comprise processes like horizontal gene transfer, hybridization and incomplete lineage sorting, while methodological ones contain falsely assigned data or violations of the assumptions of the underlying model. While the former provides interesting insights into the evolutionary history of the investigated groups, the latter should be avoided or minimized as best as possible. However, errors introduced by methodology must first be excluded or minimized to be able to conclude that biological sources are the cause. Fortunately, a variety of useful tools exist to help detect such misassignments and model violations and to apply ameliorating measurements. Still, the number of methods and their theoretical underpinning can be overwhelming and opaque. Here, we present a practical and comprehensive review of recent developments in techniques to detect artefacts arising from model violations and poorly assigned data. The advantages and disadvantages of the different methods to detect such misleading signals in phylogenetic reconstructions are also discussed. As there is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution, this review can serve as a guide in choosing the most appropriate detection methods depending on both the actual dataset and the computational power available to the researcher. Ultimately, this informed selection will have a positive impact on the broader field, allowing us to better understand the evolutionary history of the group of interest.https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13565branch length heterogeneitycompositional heterogeneityincongruencephylogenetic artefactsphylogeneticsphyloinformatics |
| spellingShingle | James F. Fleming Alberto Valero‐Gracia Torsten H. Struck Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review Evolutionary Applications branch length heterogeneity compositional heterogeneity incongruence phylogenetic artefacts phylogenetics phyloinformatics |
| title | Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review |
| title_full | Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review |
| title_fullStr | Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review |
| title_short | Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: A review |
| title_sort | identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics a review |
| topic | branch length heterogeneity compositional heterogeneity incongruence phylogenetic artefacts phylogenetics phyloinformatics |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13565 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jamesffleming identifyingandaddressingmethodologicalincongruenceinphylogenomicsareview AT albertovalerogracia identifyingandaddressingmethodologicalincongruenceinphylogenomicsareview AT torstenhstruck identifyingandaddressingmethodologicalincongruenceinphylogenomicsareview |