Detecting and Overcoming Systematic Errors in Genome-Scale Phylogenies
Open accessAbstract
Genome-scale data sets result in an enhanced resolution of the phylogenetic inference by reducing stochastic errors. However, there is also an increase of systematic errors due to model violations, which can lead to erroneous phylogenies. Here, we explore the impact of systematic errors on the resolution of the eukaryotic phylogeny using a data set of 143 nuclear-encoded proteins from 37 species. The initial observation was that, despite the impressive amount of data, some branches had no significant statistical support. To demonstrate that this lack of resolution is due to a mutual annihilation of phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic signals, we created a series of data sets with slightly different taxon sampling. As expected, these data sets yielded strongly supported but mutually exclusive trees, thus confirming the presence of conflicting phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic signals in the original data set. To decide on the correct tree, we applied several methods expected to reduce the impact of some kinds of systematic error. Briefly, we show that (i) removing fast-evolving positions, (ii) recoding amino acids into functional categories, and (iii) using a site-heterogeneous mixture model (CAT) are three effective means of increasing the ratio of phylogenetic to nonphylogenetic signal. Finally, our results allow us to formulate guidelines for detecting and overcoming phylogenetic artefacts in genome-scale phylogenetic analyses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Amino acid recoding has long been considered a powerful strategy to reduce compositional heterogeneity and saturation in the data.
“Amino acid recoding has long been considered as a powerful strategy to reduce compositional heterogeneity and saturation in the data [7, 13-15, 31-36]”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 323
- Authors
- Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N., Brinkmann, H., Roure, B., Lartillot, N., Lang, B. F., & Philippe, H.
- Affiliations
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Centre Robert Cedergren, Département de Biochimie, Université de Montréal 2900 Boulevard Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1J4, Canada E-mail: Herve.Philippe@UMontreal.CA (H.P.)
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Philippe, Hervé
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 389-399
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2168198916
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 12.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Funders
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
- Genome Canada
- Canada Research Chairs
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
- Keywords
- systematic errors, genome-scale phylogeny, eukaryotic phylogeny, nuclear-encoded proteins, phylogenetic signal, taxon sampling, cat model
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Classification, Phylogeny, Selection Bias, Genome, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology, Principal Component Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review