Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The perils of intralocus recombination for inferences of molecular convergence

Mendes, Fábio K., Livera, Andrew P., Hahn, Matthew W.·2019·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Accurate inferences of convergence require that the appropriate tree topology be used. If there is a mismatch between the tree a trait has evolved along and the tree used for analysis, then false inferences of convergence (‘hemiplasy’) can occur. To avoid problems of hemiplasy when there are high levels of gene tree discordance with the species tree, researchers have begun to construct tree topologies from individual loci. However, due to intralocus recombination, even locus-specific trees may contain multiple topologies within them. This implies that the use of individual tree topologies discordant with the species tree can still lead to incorrect inferences about molecular convergence. Here, we examine the frequency with which single exons and single protein-coding genes contain multiple underlying tree topologies, in primates and Drosophila , and quantify the effects of hemiplasy when using trees inferred from individual loci. In both clades, we find that there are most often multiple diagnosable topologies within single exons and whole genes, with 91% of Drosophila protein-coding genes containing multiple topologies. Because of this underlying topological heterogeneity, even using trees inferred from individual protein-coding genes results in 25% and 38% of substitutions falsely labelled as convergent in primates and Drosophila , respectively. While constructing local trees can reduce the problem of hemiplasy, our results suggest that it will be difficult to completely avoid false inferences of convergence. We conclude by suggesting several ways forward in the analysis of convergent evolution, for both molecular and morphological characters. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Convergent evolution in the genomics era: new insights and directions’.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2018.0244

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • By accounting for synonymous substitutions, the CSUBST metric is robust to errors in topology which can confound other methods.

    “By accounting for synonymous substitutions, this metric is robust to errors in topology which can confound the other methods described above (Mendes and Hahn 2016; Mendes et al. 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091851 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Lamichhaney S, 2019, Integrating natural history collections and comparative genomics to study the genetic architecture of convergent evolution, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 374, 20180248, 10.1098/rstb.2018.0248 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1093/molbev/msn178 · DOI
  4. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0104 · DOI
  5. 10.1126/science.1226630 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1126/science.aaf9070 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/1745-6150-2-20 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/molbev/msn143 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/ng.3198 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/molbev/msv041 · DOI
  11. 10.1093/molbev/msv091 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1093/molbev/msw112 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.7554/eLife.25884 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Thomas GWC, 2017, The effects of increasing the number of taxa on inferences of molecular convergence, Genome Biol. Evol., 9, 213
  15. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0235 · DOI
  16. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0246 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/molbev/msv013 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/molbev/msv014 · DOI
  19. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0234 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/nrg.2016.11 · DOI
  21. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0238 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/evo.12832 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020173 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/nature11041 · DOI
  25. 10.1101/gr.130922.111 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/nature10842 · DOI
  27. 10.1101/gr.159426.113 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nature13726 · DOI
  29. 10.1126/science.1253451 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1126/science.1258524 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/ng.3617 · DOI
  32. 10.1534/genetics.105.049593 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/10635150802164587 · DOI
  34. 10.1093/sysbio/syw018 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1093/molbev/msw197 · DOI
  36. 10.1073/pnas.1706367114 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/nature25140 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/mec.14780 · DOI
  39. 10.1126/science.1258522 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/molbev/mst005 · DOI
  41. 10.1093/molbev/msx109 · DOI
  42. Scornavacca C, 2017, Incomplete lineage sorting in mammalian phylogenomics, Syst. Biol., 66, 112
  43. 10.1101/gr.229102 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1093/nar/gkh340 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1093/nar/gkv1189 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1093/nar/gkh103 · DOI
  48. 10.1093/sysbio/syx063 · DOI
  49. 10.1093/molbev/msu300 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1111/evo.12118 · DOI
  51. 10.1093/molbev/msx126 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1073/pnas.1811268115 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.08.013 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/sysbio/syv016 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.10.027 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.07.018 · DOI
  57. 10.1080/10635150601146041 · DOI
  58. 10.1093/sysbio/syp031 · DOI
  59. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp079 · DOI
  60. 10.1186/1471-2148-10-302 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv234 · DOI
  62. 10.1093/sysbio/syr128 · DOI
  63. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt394 · DOI
  64. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-S6-S11 · DOI
  65. Richards EJ, 2018, Variation across mitochondrial gene trees provides evidence for systematic error: how much gene tree variation is biological, Syst. Biol., 11, 19
  66. 10.1080/10635150290102393 · DOI
  67. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu201 · DOI
  68. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0236 · DOI
  69. 10.7554/eLife.36482 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mendes, F. K., Livera, A. P., & Hahn, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Computer Science, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
  • Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2019-06-03
Volume
374
Issue
1777
Pages
20180244
ISSN
  • 0962-8436
  • 1471-2970
Cited by
42
References
1
Language
en
Funders
Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI-1564611)

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