Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships

Christophe J. Douady; Camilla L. Nesbø

doi:10.1128/9781555817497.ch36

Chapter 36 : Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships

Authors: Christophe J. Douady, Camilla L. Nesbø

Content Type: Reference

Publication Year: 2007

Category: Microbial Genetics and Molecular Biology

Book DOI: 10.1128/9781555817497

Chapter DOI: 10.1128/9781555817497.ch36

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Preview this chapter:

Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships, Page 1 of 2

< Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817497/9781555812232_Chap36-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817497/9781555812232_Chap36-2.gif

Abstract:

Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships among organisms or genes, and phylogenetic analyses aim at estimating or reconstructing the evolutionary relationships among such “operational taxonomic units” (OTUs). These relationships are usually visualized as a phylogenetic tree, which portrays the evolutionary history of the OTUs. In this chapter the OTUs of interest are represented either by DNA or amino acid sequences. A reader with little or no prior experience, however, should be able to use the chapter as a guide to the options available for different types of data as well as to software available for doing the analysis. Importantly, if the rooting aspect of a tree is crucial to resolve a question, it is also likely to be the most unreliable part of the analysis. Halobacteria would remain monophyletic but the Euryarchaeota would become paraphyletic. With the increasing amount of sequences available, mainly from the genome-sequencing projects, it has become increasingly evident that many genes from prokaryotic genomes have different evolutionary relationships due to transfer of genes between lineages or species, a phenomenon termed lateral or horizontal gene transfer (LGT). It is apparent that the range of phylogenetic techniques is considerable, as are the questions that can be addressed using these techniques. It is also clear that phylogenetic analysis cannot be regarded as a "black box" and that each analysis will be "custom made".

Citation: Douady C, Nesbø C. 2007. Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships, p 856-868. In Reddy C, Beveridge T, Breznak J, Marzluf G, Schmidt T, Snyder L (ed), Methods for General and Molecular Microbiology, Third Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817497.ch36

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide

Full text loading...

Figures

Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships

[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36-1,webId=/content/author/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36-1,properties={foaf_givenname=Christophe J., foaf_name=Christophe J. Douady, foaf_surname=Douady}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36-2,webId=/content/author/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Camilla L., foaf_name=Camilla L. Nesbø, foaf_surname=Nesbø}]]

/content/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36.fig36-1

FIGURE 1

Three possible alignments between the same two sequences, showing the compromises between the number of gaps and the number of mismatches. Positions in bold indicate matching sites.

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-1_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-1.gif

FIGURE 1

Three possible alignments between the same two sequences, showing the compromises between the number of gaps and the number of mismatches. Positions in bold indicate matching sites.

/content/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36.fig36-2

FIGURE 2

Sequences in FASTA format. Each sequence is composed of two parts. The first part includes the first line only, which always starts with a “greater than” sign (>) and is a more or less complex description of the sequence. To avoid any downstream problems, we recommend using a nine-character descriptor with spaces represented by an underscore sign (e.g., the last sequence). The second part is the actual string of nucleotides or amino acids. By default this part will start after the descriptor paragraph mark and will end just before the next “greater than” sign.

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-2_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-2.gif

FIGURE 2

/content/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36.fig36-3

FIGURE 3

Unrooted (A) versus rooted (B and C) trees. Ovals enclose monophyletic groups and rectangles enclose paraphyletic groups. Underlined taxa are members of a polyphyletic group. The black dots on the tree represent each group's ancestor. Note that when the outgroup is changed, some monophyletic groups may become paraphyletic (e.g., the Euryarchaeota are monophyletic in tree B but not in C). The scale bar represents substitutions per 100 sites.

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-3_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817497/fig36-3.gif

FIGURE 3

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36

1. Felsenstein, F. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. The most complete. THE reference.

2. Graur, D.,, and W.-H. Li. 2000. Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. As indicated by its title, the primary focus of this book is molecular evolution. However, numerous notions introduced mostly in chapters 3 to 5 will be of great help to any apprentice phylogeneticists. The help will nevertheless remain on the theoretical side, as few if any practical considerations are discussed.

3. Hall, B. G. 2001. Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy: A How-To Manual for Molecular Biologists. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. By author’s own admission, this book should be taken as a cookbook and not as a textbook. It will prove most useful for inexperienced Mac users who are interested in generating neighborjoining and Bayesian trees. This book also includes a very useful section on generating and improving alignments.

4. Page, R. D. M.,, and E. C. Holmes. 1998. Molecular Evolution: a Phylogenetic Approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford. This book can definitively be regarded as the textbook in phylogenetic reconstruction. With the exception of Bayesian inference, which was being developed at the time, most of the major topics in the field are nicely presented. This work is the most adequate introduction to the Swofford et al. ( 1996) publication.

5. Page, R. D. M.,, O. Gascuel,, J. C. Wilgenbush,, D. Swofford,, D. Posada,, H. A. Schmidt,, A. von Haeseler,, and D. H. Huson,. 2003. Inferring evolutionary relationships. In A. D. Baxevanis,, D. B. Davison,, R. D. M. Page,, G. A. Petsko,, L. D. Stein,, and G. D. Stormo (ed.), Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. This section of the Current Protocols in Bioinformatics provides classic and yet accessible protocols for choosing models of evolution and finding most parsimonious and neighbor-joining trees as well as visualizing them. The section is completed by an introduction to phylogenetic inference, usage of quartet puzzling to approximate the most likely tree, and an alternative approach for non-tree-like data.

6. Swofford, D. L.,, G. P. Olsen,, P. J. Waddell,, and D. M. Hillis,. 1996. Phylogenetic inference, p. 407– 514. In D. M. Hillis,, C. Moritz,, and B. K. Mable (ed.), Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. This book chapter is essential for any tree builder who wants to know more. A few of the newer techniques are missing, but it still remains valuable. It is likely to be a bit cryptic to any newcomer, but reading Page and Holmes’s book first will make things clearer.>

1. Adachi, J.,, and M. Hasegawa. 1996. Model of amino acid substitution in proteins encoded by mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 42: 459– 468.

2. Andersson, J. O.,, W. F. Doolittle,, and C. L. Nesbo. 2001. Genomics. Are there bugs in our genome? Science 292: 1848– 1850.

3. Blouin, C.,, Y. Boucher,, and A. J. Roger. 2003. Inferring functional constraints and divergence in protein families using 3D mapping of phylogenetic information. Nucleic Acids Res. 31: 790– 797.

4. Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10: 295– 304.

5. Cannone, J. J.,, S. Subramanian,, M. N. Schnare,, J. R. Collett,, L. M. D’Souza,, Y. Du,, B. Feng,, N. Lin,, L. V. Madabusi,, K. M. Muller,, N. Pande,, Z. Shang,, N. Yu,, and R. R. Gutell. 31 May 2002. The Comparative RNA Web (CRW) Site: an online database of comparative sequence and structure information for ribosomal, intron, and other RNAs. BMC Bioinformatics 3: 2. [online.] http://www.rna.ccbb.utexas.edu/.

6. Castresana, J. 2000. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17: 540– 552.

7. Cole, J. R.,, B. Chai,, T. L. Marsh,, R. J. Farris,, Q. Wang,, S. A. Kulam,, S. Chandra,, D. M. McGarrell,, T. M. Schmidt,, G. M. Garrity,, and J. M. Tiedje. 2003. The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP-II): previewing a new autoaligner that allows regular updates and the new prokaryotic taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 31: 442– 443.

8. Cunningham, C. W. 1997. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 46: 464– 478.

9. Dacks, J. B.,, and W. F. Doolittle. 2002. Novel syntaxin gene sequences from Giardia, Trypanosoma and algae: implications for the ancient evolution of the eukaryotic endomembrane system. J Cell Sci. 115: 1635– 1642.

10. Dayhoff, M. O.,, R. M. Schwartz,, and B. C. Orcutt,. 1978. A model of evolutionary change in proteins, p. 345– 352. In M. O. Dayhoff (ed.), Atlas of Protein Sequence Structure, vol. 5. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, DC.

11. DeLong, E. F. 2002. Microbial population genomics and ecology. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 5: 520– 524.

12. Doolittle, W. F. 1999. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284: 2124– 2129.

13. Doolittle, W. F.,, Y. Boucher,, C. L. Nesbø,, C. J. Douady,, J. O. Andersson,, and A. J. Roger. 2003. How big is the iceberg of which organellar genes in nuclear genomes are but the tip? Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 358: 39– 58.

14. Douady, C. J.,, F. Delsuc,, Y. Boucher,, W. F. Doolittle,, and E. J. P. Douzery. 2003. Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20: 248– 254.

15. Efron, B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7: 1– 26.

16. Eisen, J. A.,, and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: phylogenomics in action. Theor. Popul. Biol. 61: 481– 487.

17. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27: 401– 410.

18. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783– 791.

19. Fitch, W. M. 1971. Rate of change of concomitantly variable codons. J. Mol. Evol. 1: 84– 96.

20. Fukami-Kobayashi, K.,, D. R. Schreiber,, and S. A. Benner. 2002. Detecting compensatory covariation signals in protein evolution using reconstructed ancestral sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 319: 729– 743.

21. Galtier, N. 2001. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18: 866– 873.

22. Gascuel, O., 2003. Getting a tree fast: neighbor joining and distance based methods, p. 6.3.1– 6.3.18. In G. D. Stormo (ed.), Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, vol. I. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

23. Gaucher, E. A.,, X. Gu,, M. M. Miyamoto,, and S. A. Benner. 2002. Predicting functional divergence in protein evolution by site-specific rate shifts. Trends Biochem. Sci. 27: 315– 321.

24. Gogarten, J. P.,, W. F. Doolittle,, and J. G. Lawrence. 2002. Prokaryotic evolution in light of gene transfer. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 2226– 2238.

25. Goldman, N.,, J. P. Anderson,, and A. G. Rodrigo. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49: 652– 670.

26. Graham, R. L.,, and L. R. Foulds. 1982. Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in a reasonable computational time. Math. Biosci. 60: 133– 142.

27. Graur, D.,, and W.-H. L. Li. 2000. Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

28. Hall, B. G. 2001. Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy: A Howto Manual for Molecular Biologists. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

29. Hendy, M. D.,, and D. Penny. 1982. Branch and bound algorithms to determine minimal evolutionary trees. Math. Biosci. 59: 277– 290.

30. Henikoff, S.,, and J. G. Henikoff. 1992. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89: 10915– 10919.

31. Hillis, D. M.,, and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42: 182– 192.

32. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1995. The robustness of two phylogenetic methods: four-taxon simulations reveal a slight superiority of maximum likelihood over neighbor joining. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12: 843– 849.

33. Huelsenbeck, J. P.,, and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17: 754– 755.

34. Huelsenbeck, J. P.,, F. Ronquist,, R. Nielsen,, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Evolution: Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294: 2310– 2314.

35. Inagaki, Y.,, C. Blouin,, W. F. Doolittle,, and A. J. Roger. 2002. Convergence and constraint in eukaryotic release factor 1 (eRF1) domain 1: the evolution of stop codon specificity. Nucleic Acids Res. 30: 532– 544.

36. Jones, D. T.,, W. R. Taylor,, and J. M. Thornton. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. CABIOS 8: 275– 282.

37. Kishino, H.,, and M. Hasegawa. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29: 170– 179.

38. Lanave, C.,, G. Preparata,, C. Saccone,, and G. Serio. 1984. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Evol. 20: 86– 93.

39. Lockhart, P. J.,, M. A. Steel,, A. C. Barbrook ,, D. H. Huson,, M. A. Charleston,, and C. J. Howe. 1998. A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15: 1183– 1188.

40. Lopez, P.,, D. Casane,, and H. Philippe. 2002. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19: 1– 7.

41. Lopez, P.,, P. Forterre,, and H. Philippe. 1999. The root of the tree of life in the light of the covarion model. J. Mol. Evol. 49: 496– 508.

42. Loytynoja, A.,, and M. C. Milinkovitch. 2001. SOAP, cleaning multiple alignments from unstable blocks. Bioinformatics 17: 573– 574.

43. Lucas, P.,, C. Otis,, J. P. Mercier,, M. Turmel,, and C. Lemieux. 2001. Rapid evolution of the DNA-binding site in LAGLIDADG homing endonucleases. Nucleic Acids Res. 29: 960– 969.

44. Meireles, C. M.,, J. Czelusniak,, M. P. Schneider,, J. A. Muniz,, M. C. Brigido,, H. S. Ferreira,, and M. Goodman. 1999. Molecular phylogeny of ateline new world monkeys (Platyrrhini, atelinae) based on gamma-globin gene sequences: evidence that brachyteles is the sister group of lagothrix. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12: 10– 30.

45. Messier, W.,, and C. B. Stewart. 1997. Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes. Nature 385: 151– 154.

46. Mueller, L. D.,, and F. J. Ayala. 1982. Estimation and interpretation of genetic distance in empirical studies. Genet. Res. 40: 127– 137.

47. Page, R. D. M.,, O. Gascuel,, J. C. Wilgenbush,, D. Swofford,, D. Posada,, H. A. Schmidt,, A. von Haeseler,, and D. H. Huson,. 2003. Inferring evolutionary relationships. In L. D. Stein, and G. D. Stormo (ed.), Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

48. Penny, D.,, B. J. McComish,, M. A. Charleston,, and M. D. Hendy. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 53: 711– 723.

49. Posada, D.,, and K. A. Crandall. 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817– 818.

50. Rannala, B.,, and Z. H. Yang. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 43: 304– 311.

51. Saitou, N.,, and M. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4: 406– 425.

52. Salemi, M.,, and A.-M. Vandamme. 2003. The Phylogenetic Handbook. A Practical Approach to DNA and Protein Phylogeny. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

53. Shimodaira, H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst. Biol. 51: 492– 508.

54. Shimodaira, H.,, and M. Hasegawa. 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16: 1114– 1116.

55. Shimodaira, H.,, and M. Hasegawa. 2001. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17: 1246– 1247.

56. Sicheritz-Ponten, T.,, and S. G. Andersson. 2001. A phylogenomic approach to microbial evolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 29: 545– 552.

57. Simmons, M. P.,, H. Ochoterena,, and J. V. Freudenstein. 2002. Amino acid vs. nucleotide characters: challenging preconceived notions. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 24: 78– 90.

58. Stackhouse, J.,, S. R. Presnell,, G. M. McGeehan,, K. P. Nambiar,, and S. A. Benner. 1990. The ribonuclease from an extinct bovid ruminant. FEBS Lett. 262: 104– 106.

59. Stanhope, M. J.,, A. Lupas,, M. J. Italia,, K. K. Koretke,, C. Volker,, and J. R. Brown. 2001. Phylogenetic analyses do not support horizontal gene transfers from bacteria to vertebrates. Nature 411: 940– 944.

60. Swofford, D. L. (ed.). 2001. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

61. Swofford, D. L.,, G. P. Olsen,, P. J. Waddell,, and D. M. Hillis,. 1996. Phylogenetic inference, p. 407– 514. In B. K. Mable (ed.), Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

62. Templeton, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37: 221– 244.

63. Thompson, J. D.,, D. G. Higgins,, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22: 4673– 4680.

64. Thompson, J. D.,, F. Plewniak,, and O. Poch. 1999. A comprehensive comparison of multiple sequence alignment programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 27: 2682– 2690.

65. Veerassamy, S.,, A. Smith,, and E. R. M. Tillier. 2003. A transition probability model for amino acid substitutions from BLOCKS. J. Comput. Biol. 10: 997– 1010.

66. Wuyts, J.,, P. De Rijk,, Y. Van de Peer,, T. Winkelmans,, and R. De Wachter. 2001. The European Large Subunit Ribosomal RNA database. Nucleic Acids Res. 29: 175– 177.

67. Wuyts, J.,, Y. Van de Peer,, T. Winkelmans,, and R. De Wachter. 2002. The European database on small subunit ribosomal RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 30: 183– 185.

68. Yang, Z. 1996. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 367– 372.

69. Yang, Z. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. J. Mol. Evol. 42: 294– 307.

Tables

Reconstructing and Interpreting Evolutionary Relationships

/content/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36.tab36-1

TABLE 1

Useful software a

a This list is far from being exhaustive, but presents a few of the most widely used software packages. A more complete list can be found at Joe Felsenstein's web page (http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip/software.html).

10.1128/9781555817497/tab36-1_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817497/tab36-1.gif

TABLE 1

Useful software a

/content/10.1128/9781555817497.chap36.tab36-2

TABLE 2

Function implemented in some of the most common phylogenetic software a

a Absence of a check mark does not mean that the given software cannot perform the task, but that we do not find it advisable to carry out the task. When between parentheses, a check mark indicates a weak possibility. *, via other software. nt, nucleotides; aa, amino acids.

10.1128/9781555817497/tab36-2_thmb.gif

10.1128/9781555817497/tab36-2.gif

TABLE 2

Function implemented in some of the most common phylogenetic software a