Cited by 258Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Genome-scale coestimation of species and gene trees

Open access
Boussau, Bastien, Szöllősi, Gergely J., Duret, Laurent, Gouy, Manolo, Tannier, Eric, Daubin, Vincent·2013·Genome Research

Abstract

Comparisons of gene trees and species trees are key to understanding major processes of genome evolution such as gene duplication and loss. Because current methods to reconstruct phylogenies fail to model the two-way dependency between gene trees and the species tree, they often misrepresent gene and species histories. We present a new probabilistic model to jointly infer rooted species and gene trees for dozens of genomes and thousands of gene families. We use simulations to show that this method accurately infers the species tree and gene trees, is robust to misspecification of the models of sequence and gene family evolution, and provides a precise historic record of gene duplications and losses throughout genome evolution. We simultaneously reconstruct the history of mammalian species and their genes based on 36 completely sequenced genomes, and use the reconstructed gene trees to infer the gene content and organization of ancestral mammalian genomes. We show that our method yields a more accurate picture of ancestral genomes than the trees available in the authoritative database Ensembl.

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 · 10.1101/gr.141978.112

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The novel OrthoFinder method outperformed all methods other than DLCpar (full) in terms of accuracy on two independent simulated datasets.

    “In terms of accuracy, the novel OrthoFinder method outperformed all methods other than DLCpar (full) (Fig. 5a, Additional file 1: Table S2).”

    From OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics (2019) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results > Simulations passage reports that PHYLDOG produced more accurate gene trees than PhyML, not an accuracy ranking for OrthoFinder. Searches for OrthoFinder, DLCpar, and the claimed comparison across two independent simulated datasets found no passage addressing it in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Akerborg O, Sennblad B, Arvestad L, Lagergren J 2009 Simultaneous Bayesian gene tree reconstruction and reconciliation analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 5714– 5719 19299507 PMC2667006
  2. Arvestad L 2003 Bayesian gene/species tree reconciliation and orthology analysis using MCMC. Bioinformatics 19: i7– i15 12855432
  3. Bansal MS, Eulenstein O 2008 The multiple gene duplication problem revisited. Bioinformatics 24: i132– i138 18586705 PMC2718628
  4. Bansal MS, Burleigh JG, Eulenstein O 2010 Efficient genome-scale phylogenetic analysis under the duplication-loss and deep coalescence cost models. BMC Bioinformatics 11: S42 PMC3009515 20122216
  5. Chaudhary R, Bansal M, Wehe A, Fernandez-Baca D, Eulenstein O 2010 igtp: A software package for large-scale gene tree parsimony analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 11: 574 21092314 PMC3002902
  6. Dubb L 2005 “A likelihood model of gene family evolution.” PhD thesis, University of Washington
  7. Dufayard JF, Duret L, Penel S, Gouy M, Rechenmann F, Perrière G 2005 Tree pattern matching in phylogenetic trees: Automatic search for orthologs or paralogs in homologous gene sequence databases. Bioinformatics 21: 2596– 2603 15713731
  8. Dutheil J, Gaillard S, Bazin E, Glémin S, Ranwez V, Galtier N, Belkhir K 2006 Bio++: A set of C++ libraries for sequence analysis, phylogenetics, molecular evolution and population genetics. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 188 16594991 PMC1501049
  9. Flicek P, Amode MR, Barrell D, Beal K, Brent S, Chen Y, Clapham P, Coates G, Fairley S, Fitzgerald S, 2010 Ensembl 2011. Nucleic Acids Res 39: D800– D806 21045057 PMC3013672
  10. Galtier N 2007 A model of horizontal gene transfer and the bacterial phylogeny problem. Syst Biol 56: 633– 642 17661231
  11. Genome 10K Community of Scientists 2009 Genome 10K: A proposal to obtain whole-genome sequence for 10 000 vertebrate species. J Hered 100: 659– 674 19892720 PMC2877544
  12. Górecki P, Burleigh GJ, Eulenstein O 2011 Maximum likelihood models and algorithms for gene tree evolution with duplications and losses. BMC Bioinformatics 12: S15 PMC3044269 21342544
  13. Guigó R, Muchnik I, Smith TF 1996 Reconstruction of ancient molecular phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol 6: 189– 213 8899723
  14. Hahn MW 2007 Bias in phylogenetic tree reconciliation methods: Implications for vertebrate genome evolution. Genome Biol 8: R141 17634151 PMC2323230
  15. Heled J, Drummond A 2010 Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data. Mol Biol Evol 27: 570 19906793 PMC2822290
  16. Hobolth A, Dutheil JY, Hawks J, Schierup MH, Mailund T 2011 Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee, and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection. Genome Res 21: 349– 356 21270173 PMC3044849
  17. Huerta-Cepas J, Capella-Gutierrez S, Pryszcz LP, Denisov I, Kormes D, Marcet-Houben M, Gabaldon T 2011 PhylomeDB v3.0: An expanding repository of genome-wide collections of trees, alignments and phylogeny-based orthology and paralogy predictions. Nucleic Acids Res 39: D556– D560 21075798 PMC3013701
  18. Janecka J, Miller W, Pringle T, Wiens F, Zitzmann A, Helgen K, Springer M, Murphy W 2007 Molecular and genomic data identify the closest living relative of primates. Science 318: 792 17975064
  19. Liu L, Pearl DK 2007 Species trees from gene trees: Reconstructing bayesian posterior distributions of a species phylogeny using estimated gene tree distributions. Syst Biol 56: 504– 514 17562474
  20. Liu K, Raghavan S, Nelesen S, Linder C, Warnow T 2009 Rapid and accurate large-scale coestimation of sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees. Science 324: 1561 19541996
  21. McCormack JE, Faircloth BC, Crawford NG, Gowaty PA, Brumfield RT, Glenn TC 2012 Ultraconserved elements are novel phylogenomic markers that resolve placental mammal phylogeny when combined with species-tree analysis. Genome Res 22: 746– 754 22207614 PMC3317156
  22. Milinkovitch MC, Helaers R, Depiereux E, Tzika AC, Gabaldon T 2010 2X genomes - depth does matter. Genome Biol 11: R16 20144222 PMC2872876
  23. Mirkin B, Muchnik I, Smith TF 1995 A biologically consistent model for comparing molecular phylogenies. J Comput Biol 2: 493– 507 8634901
  24. Murphy WJ, Pringle TH, Crider TA, Springer MS, Miller W 2007 Using genomic data to unravel the root of the placental mammal phylogeny. Genome Res 17: 413– 421 17322288 PMC1832088
  25. Penel S, Arigon AM, Dufayard JF, Sertier AS, Daubin V, Duret L, Gouy M, Perrière G 2009 Databases of homologous gene families for comparative genomics. BMC Bioinformatics (Suppl 6) 10: S3 19534752 PMC2697650
  26. Rasmussen M, Kellis M 2010 A Bayesian approach for fast and accurate gene tree reconstruction. Mol Biol Evol 28: 273– 290 20660489 PMC3002250
  27. Rasmussen MD, Kellis M 2012 Unified modeling of gene duplication, loss, and coalescence using a locus tree. Genome Res 22: 755– 765 22271778 PMC3317157
  28. Robinson D, Foulds L 1979 Comparison of weighted labeled trees. Isomorphic factorisations VI: Automorphisms. In Combinatorial mathematics, No. 748 in Lecture Notes in Mathematics (ed. AF Horadam and WD Wallis), pp. 119–126. Springer, Berlin
  29. Robinson GE, Hackett KJ, Purcell-Miramontes M, Brown SJ, Evans JD, Goldsmith MR, Lawson D, Okamuro J, Robertson HM, Schneider DJ 2011 Creating a buzz about insect genomes. Science 331: 1386 21415334
  30. Scally A, Dutheil J, Hillier L, Jordan G, Goodhead I, Herrero J, Hobolth A, Lappalainen T, Mailund T, Marques-Bonet T, 2012 Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence. Nature 483: 169– 175 doi. 22398555 PMC3303130
  31. Vilella AJ, Severin J, Ureta-Vidal A, Heng L, Durbin R, Birney E 2008 EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: Complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res 19: 327– 335 19029536 PMC2652215
  32. Waddell PJ, Okada N, Hasegawa M 1999 Towards resolving the interordinal relationships of placental mammals. Syst Biol 48: 1– 5 12078634
  33. Wehe A, Bansal MS, Burleigh JG, Eulenstein O 2008 DupTree: A program for large-scale phylogenetic analyses using gene tree parsimony. Bioinformatics 24: 1540– 1541 18474508
  34. Wong KM, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP 2008 Alignment uncertainty and genomic analysis. Science 319: 473– 476 18218900
  35. Zhou X, Xu S, Xu J, Chen B, Zhou K, Yang G 2012 Phylogenomic analysis resolves the interordinal relationships and rapid diversification of the laurasiatherian mammals. Syst Biol 61: 150– 164 21900649 PMC3243735
  36. Zmasek CM, Eddy SR 2001 A simple algorithm to infer gene duplication and speciation events on a gene tree. Bioinformatics 17: 821– 828 11590098

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boussau, B., Szöllősi, G. J., Duret, L., Gouy, M., Tannier, E., & Daubin, V.
Affiliations
Lyon 1 Université (FR)
Corresponding author
Boussau, Bastien
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2012-11-06
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
323-330
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972157500
Cited by
258
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (253642)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (011-03, ANR- 10-BINF-01-01, ANR-08-EMER-0011, ANR-10-BINF-0001, ANR-10)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
species tree estimation, gene tree estimation, gene duplication, gene loss, coalescent models, ancestral genome reconstruction, mammalian phylogeny, gene family evolution, genome evolution
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Computer Simulation, Genes, Humans, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Models, Statistical, Genome, Gene Deletion, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology, Gene Duplication

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