Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the increasing availability of whole genome data, many species trees are being constructed from hundreds to thousands of loci. Although concatenation analysis using maximum likelihood is a standard approach for estimating species trees, it does not account for gene tree heterogeneity, which can occur due to many biological processes, such as incomplete lineage sorting. Coalescent species tree estimation methods, many of which are statistically consistent in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting, include Bayesian methods that coestimate the gene trees and the species tree, summary methods that compute the species tree by combining estimated gene trees, and site-based methods that infer the species tree from site patterns in the alignments of different loci. Due to concerns that poor quality loci will reduce the accuracy of estimated species trees, many recent phylogenomic studies have removed or filtered genes on the basis of phylogenetic signal and/or missing data prior to inferring species trees; little is known about the performance of species tree estimation methods when gene filtering is performed. We examine how incomplete lineage sorting, phylogenetic signal of individual loci, and missing data affect the absolute and the relative accuracy of species tree estimation methods and show how these properties affect methods’ responses to gene filtering strategies. In particular, summary methods (ASTRAL-II, ASTRID, and MP-EST), a site-based coalescent method (SVDquartets within PAUP*), and an unpartitioned concatenation analysis using maximum likelihood (RAxML) were evaluated on a heterogeneous collection of simulated multilocus data sets, and the following trends were observed. Filtering genes based on gene tree estimation error improved the accuracy of the summary methods when levels of incomplete lineage sorting were low to moderate but did not benefit the summary methods under higher levels of incomplete lineage sorting, unless gene tree estimation error was also extremely high (a model condition with few replicates). Neither SVDquartets nor concatenation analysis using RAxML benefited from filtering genes on the basis of gene tree estimation error. Finally, filtering genes based on missing data was either neutral (i.e., did not impact accuracy) or else reduced the accuracy of all five methods. By providing insight into the consequences of gene filtering, we offer recommendations for estimating species tree in the presence of incomplete lineage sorting and reconcile seemingly conflicting observations made in prior studies regarding the impact of gene filtering.

Phylogeny estimation is a major step in many biological studies, and has many well known challenges. With the dropping cost of sequencing technologies, biologists now have increasingly large datasets available for use in phylogeny estimation. Here we address the challenge of estimating a tree given large datasets with a combination of full-length sequences and fragmentary sequences, which can arise due to a variety of reasons, including sample collection, sequencing technologies, and analytical pipelines. We compare two basic approaches: (1) computing an alignment on the full dataset and then computing amaximum likelihood tree on the alignment, or (2) constructing an alignment and tree on the full length sequences and then using phylogenetic placement to add the remaining sequences (which will generally be fragmentary) into the tree. We explore these two approaches on a range of simulated datasets, each with 1000 sequences and varying in rates of evolution, and two biological datasets. Our study shows some striking performance differences between methods, especially when there is substantial sequence length heterogeneity and high rates of evolution. We find in particular that using UPP to align sequences and RAxML to compute a tree on the alignment provides the best accuracy, substantially outperforming trees computed using phylogenetic placement methods. We also find that FastTree has poor accuracy on alignments containing fragmentary sequences. Overall, our study provides insights into the literature comparing different methods and pipelines for phylogenetic estimation, and suggests directions for future method development.

The estimation of species trees using multiple loci has become increasingly common. Because different loci can have different phylogenetic histories (reflected in different gene tree topologies) for multiple biological causes, new approaches to species tree estimation have been developed that take gene tree heterogeneity into account. Among these multiple causes, incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), modeled by the multi-species coalescent, is potentially the most common cause of gene tree heterogeneity, and much of the focus of the recent literature has been on how to estimate species trees in the presence of ILS. Despite progress in developing statistically consistent techniques for estimating species trees when gene trees can differ due to ILS, there is substantial controversy in the systematics community as to whether to use the new coalescent-based methods or the traditional concatenation methods. One of the key issues that has been raised is understanding the impact of gene tree estimation error on coalescent-based methods that operate by combining gene trees. Here we explore the mathematical guarantees of coalescent-based methods when analyzing estimated rather than true gene trees. Our results provide some insight into the differences between promise of coalescent-based methods in theory and their performance in practice.

Species tree estimation is complicated by processes, such as gene duplication and loss and incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), that cause discordance between gene trees and the species tree. Furthermore, while concatenation, a traditional approach to tree estimation, has excellent performance under many conditions, the expectation is that the best accuracy will be obtained through the use of species tree estimation methods that are specifically designed to address gene tree discordance. In this article, we report on a study to evaluate MP-EST—one of the most popular species tree estimation methods designed to address ILS—as well as concatenation under maximum likelihood, the greedy consensus, and two supertree methods (Matrix Representation with Parsimony and Matrix Representation with Likelihood). Our study shows that several factors impact the absolute and relative accuracy of methods, including the number of gene trees, the accuracy of the estimated gene trees, and the amount of ILS. Concatenation can be more accurate than the best summary methods in some cases (mostly when the gene trees have poor phylogenetic signal or when the level of ILS is low), but summary methods are generally more accurate than concatenation when there are an adequate number of sufficiently accurate gene trees. Our study suggests that coalescent-based species tree methods may be key to estimating highly accurate species trees from multiple loci.

We present TIPP3 and TIPP3-fast, new tools for abundance profiling in metagenomic datasets. Like its predecessor, TIPP2, the TIPP3 pipeline uses a maximum likelihood approach to place reads into labeled taxonomies using marker genes, but it achieves superior accuracy to TIPP2 by enabling the use of much larger taxonomies through improved algorithmic techniques. We show that TIPP3 is generally more accurate than leading methods for abundance profiling in two important contexts: when reads come from genomes not already in a public database (i.e., novel genomes) and when reads contain sequencing errors. We also show that TIPP3-fast has slightly lower accuracy than TIPP3, but is also generally more accurate than other leading methods and uses a small fraction of TIPP3’s runtime. Additionally, we highlight the potential benefits of restricting abundance profiling methods to those reads that map to marker genes (i.e., using a filtered marker-gene based analysis), which we show typically improves accuracy. TIPP3 is freely available at https://github.com/c5shen/TIPP3 .

With advances in sequencing technologies, there are now massive amounts of genomic data from across all life, leading to the possibility that a robust Tree of Life can be constructed. However, “gene tree heterogeneity”, which is when different genomic regions can evolve differently, is a common phenomenon in multi-locus data sets, and reduces the accuracy of standard methods for species tree estimation that do not take this heterogeneity into account. New methods have been developed for species tree estimation that specifically address gene tree heterogeneity, and that have been proven to converge to the true species tree when the number of loci and number of sites per locus both increase (i.e., the methods are said to be “statistically consistent”). Yet, little is known about the biologically realistic condition where the number of sites per locus is bounded. We show that when the sequence length of each locus is bounded (by any arbitrarily chosen value), the most common approaches to species tree estimation that take heterogeneity into account (i.e., traditional fully partitioned concatenated maximum likelihood and newer approaches, called summary methods, that estimate the species tree by combining estimated gene trees) are not statistically consistent, even when the heterogeneity is extremely constrained. The main challenge is the presence of conditions such as long branch attraction that create biased tree estimation when the number of sites is restricted. Hence, our study uncovers a fundamental challenge to species tree estimation using both traditional and new methods.

The estimation of multiple sequence alignments of protein sequences is a basic step in many bioinformatics pipelines, including protein structure prediction, protein family identification, and phylogeny estimation. Statistical coestimation of alignments and trees under stochastic models of sequence evolution has long been considered the most rigorous technique for estimating alignments and trees, but little is known about the accuracy of such methods on biological benchmarks. We report the results of an extensive study evaluating the most popular protein alignment methods as well as the statistical coestimation method BAli-Phy on 1192 protein data sets from established benchmarks as well as on 120 simulated data sets. Our study (which used more than 230 CPU years for the BAli-Phy analyses alone) shows that BAli-Phy has better precision and recall (with respect to the true alignments) than the other alignment methods on the simulated data sets but has consistently lower recall on the biological benchmarks (with respect to the reference alignments) than many of the other methods. In other words, we find that BAli-Phy systematically underaligns when operating on biological sequence data but shows no sign of this on simulated data. There are several potential causes for this change in performance, including model misspecification, errors in the reference alignments, and conflicts between structural alignment and evolutionary alignments, and future research is needed to determine the most likely explanation. We conclude with a discussion of the potential ramifications for each of these possibilities.

Species tree inference from gene family trees is a significant problem in computational biology. However, gene tree heterogeneity, which can be caused by several factors including gene duplication and loss, makes the estimation of species trees very challenging. While there have been several species tree estimation methods introduced in recent years to specifically address gene tree heterogeneity due to gene duplication and loss (such as DupTree, FastMulRFS, ASTRALPro, and SpeciesRax), many incur high cost in terms of both running time and memory. We introduce a new approach, DISCO, that decomposes the multi-copy gene family trees intomany single copy trees, which allows formethods previously designed for species tree inference in a single copy gene tree context to be used. We prove that using DISCO with ASTRAL (i.e., ASTRAL-DISCO) is statistically consistent under the GDL model, provided that ASTRAL-Pro correctly roots and tags each gene family tree. We evaluate DISCO paired with different methods for estimating species trees from single copy genes (e.g., ASTRAL, ASTRID, and IQ-TREE) under a wide range of model conditions, and establish that high accuracy can be obtained even when ASTRAL-Pro is not able to correctly roots and tags the gene family trees. We also compare results using MI, an alternative decomposition strategy from Yang Y. and Smith S.A. (2014), and find that DISCO provides better accuracy, most likely as a result of covering more of the gene family tree leafset in the output decomposition. [Concatenation analysis; gene duplication and loss; species tree inference; summary method.]

In this study, we present TIPP-SD (i.e., TIPP for Species Detection), a new technique for species detection in a microbiome sample. TIPP-SD uses a substantially modified version of TIPP3, which is a recently developed abundance profiling tool based on maximum likelihood phylogenetic placement into marker gene taxonomies. TIPP-SD depends on a parameter (i.e., \"threshold\") for the required support for species detection, thus allowing us to compute a precision-recall curve as we vary this parameter. In comparing the precision-recall curves for TIPP-SD, TIPP3, Kraken2, Bracken, Metabuli, and Metapresence, we find that TIPP-SD improves on the other methods with respect to accuracy under conditions where there is a highly variable distribution of species abundance or where there is sequencing error. Under other conditions, TIPP-SD is close to the best of these methods. Finally, although TIPP-SD is slower than the other methods, it is still fast enough to be used on large datasets. TIPP-SD is available in github as part of the TIPP3 software package.

Gene tree incongruence arising from incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) can reduce the accuracy of concatenation-based estimations of species trees. Although coalescent-based species tree estimation methods can have good accuracy in the presence of ILS, they are sensitive to gene tree estimation error. We propose a pipeline that uses bootstrapping to evaluate whether two genes are likely to have the same tree, then it groups genes into sets using a graph-theoretic optimization and estimates a tree on each subset using concatenation, and finally produces an estimated species tree from these trees using the preferred coalescent-based method. Statistical binning improves the accuracy of MP-EST, a popular coalescent-based method, and we use it to produce the first genome-scale coalescent-based avian tree of life.