An examination of the monophyly of morning glory taxa using Bayesian phylogenetic inference

The objective of this study was to obtain a quantitative assessment of the monophyly of morning glory taxa, specifically the genus Ipomoea and the tribe Argyreieae. Previous systematic studies of morning glories intimated the paraphyly of Ipomoea by suggesting that the genera within the tribe Argyreieae are derived from within Ipomoea; however, no quantitative estimates of statistical support were developed to address these questions. We applied a Bayesian analysis to provide quantitative estimates of monophyly in an investigation of morning glory relationships using DNA sequence data. We also explored various approaches for examining convergence of the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation of the Bayesian analysis by running 18 separate analyses varying in length. We found convergence of the important components of the phylogenetic model (the tree with the maximum posterior probability, branch lengths, the parameter values from the DNA substitution model, and the posterior probabilities for clade support) for these data after one million generations of the MCMC simulations. In the process, we identified a run where the parameter values obtained were often outside the range of values obtained from the other runs, suggesting an aberrant result. In addition, we compared the Bayesian method of phylogenetic analysis to maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony. The results from the Bayesian analysis and the maximum likelihood analysis were similar for topology, branch lengths, and parameters of the DNA substitution model. Topologies also were similar in the comparison between the Bayesian analysis and maximum parsimony, although the posterior probabilities and the bootstrap proportions exhibited some striking differences. In a Bayesian analysis of three data sets (ITS sequences, waxy sequences, and ITS + waxy sequences) no supoort for the monophyly of the genus Ipomoea, or for the tribe Argyreieae, was observed, with the estimate of the probability of the monophyly of these taxa being less than 3.4 x 10(-7).     

A Bayesian perspective on a non-parsimonious parsimony model

Several stochastic models of character change, when implemented in a maximum likelihood framework, are known to give a correspondence between the maximum parsimony method and the method of maximum likelihood. One such model has an independently estimated branch-length parameter for each site and each branch of the phylogenetic tree. This model--the no-common-mechanism model--has many parameters, and, in fact, the number of parameters increases as fast as the alignment is extended. We take a Bayesian approach to the no-common-mechanism model and place independent gamma prior probability distributions on the branch-length parameters. We are able to analytically integrate over the branch lengths, and this allowed us to implement an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo method for exploring the space of phylogenetic trees. We were able to reliably estimate the posterior probabilities of clades for phylogenetic trees of up to 500 sequences. However, the Bayesian approach to the problem, at least as implemented here with an independent prior on the length of each branch, does not tame the behavior of the branch-length parameters. The integrated likelihood appears to be a simple rescaling of the parsimony score for a tree, and the marginal posterior probability distribution of the length of a branch is dependent upon how the maximum parsimony method reconstructs the characters at the interior nodes of the tree. The method we describe, however, is of potential importance in the analysis of morphological character data and also for improving the behavior of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods implemented for models in which sites share a common branch-length parameter.     

Approximate Maximum Parsimony and Ancestral Maximum Likelihood

We explore the maximum parsimony (MP) and ancestral maximum likelihood (AML) criteria in phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Both problems are NP-hard, so we seek approximate solutions. We formulate the two problems as Steiner tree problems under appropriate distances. The gist of our approach is the succinct characterization of Steiner trees for a small number of leaves for the two distances. This enables the use of known Steiner tree approximation algorithms. The approach leads to a 16/9 approximation ratio for AML and asymptotically to a 1.55 approximation ratio for MP.     

A New Method of Inference of Ancestral Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences

A statistical method was developed for reconstructing the nucleotide or amino acid sequences of extinct ancestors, given the phylogeny and sequences of the extant species. A model of nucleotide or amino acid substitution was employed to analyze data of the present-day sequences, and maximum likelihood estimates of parameters such as branch lengths were used to compare the posterior probabilities of assignments of character states (nucleotides or amino acids) to interior nodes of the tree; the assignment having the highest probability was the best reconstruction at the site. The lysozyme c sequences of six mammals were analyzed by using the likelihood and parsimony methods. The new likelihood-based method was found to be superior to the parsimony method. The probability that the amino acids for all interior nodes at a site reconstructed by the new method are correct was calculated to be 0.91, 0.86, and 0.73 for all, variable, and parsimony-informative sites, respectively, whereas the corresponding probabilities for the parsimony method were 0.84, 0.76, and 0.51, respectively. The probability that an amino acid in an ancestral sequence is correctly reconstructed by the likelihood analysis ranged from 91.3 to 98.7% for the four ancestral sequences.     

Maximum likelihood of evolutionary trees: hardness and approximation

MOTIVATION: Maximum likelihood (ML) is an increasingly popular optimality criterion for selecting evolutionary trees. Yet the computational complexity of ML was open for over 20 years, and only recently resolved by the authors for the Jukes-Cantor model of substitution and its generalizations. It was proved that reconstructing the ML tree is computationally intractable (NP-hard). In this work we explore three directions, which extend that result. RESULTS: (1) We show that ML under the assumption of molecular clock is still computationally intractable (NP-hard). (2) We show that not only is it computationally intractable to find the exact ML tree, even approximating the logarithm of the ML for any multiplicative factor smaller than 1.00175 is computationally intractable. (3) We develop an algorithm for approximating log-likelihood under the condition that the input sequences are sparse. It employs any approximation algorithm for parsimony, and asymptotically achieves the same approximation ratio. We note that ML reconstruction for sparse inputs is still hard under this condition, and furthermore many real datasets satisfy it.     

Fundamental differences between the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability in phylogenetics

Using a four-taxon example under a simple model of evolution, we show that the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability (which is a Bayesian method of inference) may not arrive at the same optimal tree topology. Some patterns that are separately uninformative under the maximum likelihood method are separately informative under the Bayesian method. We also show that this difference has impact on the bootstrap frequencies and the posterior probabilities of topologies, which therefore are not necessarily approximately equal. Efron et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:13429-13434, 1996) stated that bootstrap frequencies can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as posterior probabilities. This is true only if one includes a non-informative prior distribution of the possible data patterns, and most often the prior distributions are instead specified in terms of topology and branch lengths. [Bayesian inference; maximum likelihood method; Phylogeny; support.].     

Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution

Evolutionary rates vary among sites and across the phylogenetic tree (heterotachy). A recent analysis suggested that parsimony can be better than standard likelihood at recovering the true tree given heterotachy. The authors recommended that results from parsimony, which they consider to be nonparametric, be reported alongside likelihood results. They also proposed a mixture model, which was inconsistent but better than either parsimony or standard likelihood under heterotachy. We show that their main conclusion is limited to a special case for the type of model they study. Their mixture model was inconsistent because it was incorrectly implemented. A useful nonparametric model should perform well over a wide range of possible evolutionary models, but parsimony does not have this property. Likelihood-based methods are therefore the best way to deal with heterotachy.     

Property and efficiency of the maximum likelihood method for molecular phylogeny

Summary The maximum likelihood (ML) method for constructing phylogenetic trees (both rooted and unrooted trees) from DNA sequence data was studied. Although there is some theoretical problem in the comparison of ML values conditional for each topology, it is possible to make a heuristic argument to justify the method. Based on this argument, a new algorithm for estimating the ML tree is presented. It is shown that under the assumption of a constant rate of evolution, the ML method and UPGMA always give the same rooted tree for the case of three operational taxonomic units (OTUs). This also seems to hold approximately for the case with four OTUs. When we consider unrooted trees with the assumption of a varying rate of nucleotide substitution, the efficiency of the ML method in obtaining the correct tree is similar to those of the maximum parsimony method and distance methods. The ML method was applied to Brown et al.'s data, and the tree topology obtained was the same as that found by the maximum parsimony method, but it was different from those obtained by distance methods.     

Maximum Parsimony on Phylogenetic networks

Background

Phylogenetic networks are generalizations of phylogenetic trees, that are used to model evolutionary events in various contexts. Several different methods and criteria have been introduced for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Maximum Parsimony is a character-based approach that infers a phylogenetic tree by minimizing the total number of evolutionary steps required to explain a given set of data assigned on the leaves. Exact solutions for optimizing parsimony scores on phylogenetic trees have been introduced in the past.

Results

In this paper, we define the parsimony score on networks as the sum of the substitution costs along all the edges of the network; and show that certain well-known algorithms that calculate the optimum parsimony score on trees, such as Sankoff and Fitch algorithms extend naturally for networks, barring conflicting assignments at the reticulate vertices. We provide heuristics for finding the optimum parsimony scores on networks. Our algorithms can be applied for any cost matrix that may contain unequal substitution costs of transforming between different characters along different edges of the network. We analyzed this for experimental data on 10 leaves or fewer with at most 2 reticulations and found that for almost all networks, the bounds returned by the heuristics matched with the exhaustively determined optimum parsimony scores.

Conclusion

The parsimony score we define here does not directly reflect the cost of the best tree in the network that displays the evolution of the character. However, when searching for the most parsimonious network that describes a collection of characters, it becomes necessary to add additional cost considerations to prefer simpler structures, such as trees over networks. The parsimony score on a network that we describe here takes into account the substitution costs along the additional edges incident on each reticulate vertex, in addition to the substitution costs along the other edges which are common to all the branching patterns introduced by the reticulate vertices. Thus the score contains an in-built cost for the number of reticulate vertices in the network, and would provide a criterion that is comparable among all networks. Although the problem of finding the parsimony score on the network is believed to be computationally hard to solve, heuristics such as the ones described here would be beneficial in our efforts to find a most parsimonious network.     

Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution

Stochastic models of nucleotide substitution are playing an increasingly important role in phylogenetic reconstruction through such methods as maximum likelihood. Here, we examine the behaviour of a simple substitution model, and establish some links between the methods of maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood under this model.     

Failed refutations: further comments on parsimony and likelihood methods and their relationship to Popper's degree of corroboration

Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context.     

Phylogenetic position of cetaceans relative to artiodactyls: reanalysis of mitochondrial and nuclear sequences

By a maximum likelihood analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences, we examine Graur and Higgins' hypothesis of the Ruminantia/Cetacea clade with Suiformes as an outgroup. Graur and Higgins analyzed these sequences by the neighbor-joining and parsimony methods, as well as by the maximum likelihood method under the assumption that the substitution rate is the same for all sites. The Ruminantia/Suiformes clade assumed by the traditional taxonomy was rejected strongly by this analysis and the Ruminantia/Cetacea clade was supported. Adoption of a more realistic model distinguishing among rates at different codon positions in the maximum likelihood analysis of the same data, however, grossly reduces the significance level on the Graur-Higgins hypothesis. Thus, although the Ruminantia/Suiformes grouping is indeed least likely from Graur and Higgins' data set of mitochondrial DNA, this traditional tree cannot be rejected with statistical significance under the new analysis, and more data are needed to settle the issue. In the same way, we examine Irwin and Arnason's suggestion of the Hippopotamus/Cetacea clade by using cytochrome b and hemoglobins alpha and beta, and it turn out that their suggestion is also fragile. This analysis demonstrates the importance of selecting an appropriate model among the alternatives in the maximum likelihood analysis and of using many different genes from many relevant species in order to make reliable phylogenetic inferences.      

Maximum Likelihood Estimation on Large Phylogenies and Analysis of Adaptive Evolution in Human Influenza Virus A

Algorithmic details to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of parameters on a large phylogeny are discussed. On a large tree, an efficient approach is to optimize branch lengths one at a time while updating parameters in the substitution model simultaneously. Codon substitution models that allow for variable nonsynonymous/synonymous rate ratios (ω=d _N/d _S) among sites are used to analyze a data set of human influenza virus type A hemagglutinin (HA) genes. The data set has 349 sequences. Methods for obtaining approximate estimates of branch lengths for codon models are explored, and the estimates are used to test for positive selection and to identify sites under selection. Compared with results obtained from the exact method estimating all parameters by maximum likelihood, the approximate methods produced reliable results. The analysis identified a number of sites in the viral gene under diversifying Darwinian selection and demonstrated the importance of including many sequences in the data in detecting positive selection at individual sites. Received: 25 April 2000 / Accepted: 24 July 2000     

Probabilistic methods outperform parsimony in the phylogenetic analysis of data simulated without a probabilistic model

To understand patterns and processes of the diversification of life, we require an accurate understanding of taxon interrelationships. Recent studies have suggested that analyses of morphological character data using the Bayesian and maximum likelihood Mk model provide phylogenies of higher accuracy compared to parsimony methods. This has proved controversial, particularly studies simulating morphology‐data under Markov models that assume shared branch lengths for characters, as it is claimed this leads to bias favouring the Bayesian or maximum likelihood Mk model over parsimony models which do not explicitly make this assumption. We avoid these potential issues by employing a simulation protocol in which character states are randomly assigned to tips, but datasets are constrained to an empirically realistic distribution of homoplasy as measured by the consistency index. Datasets were analysed with equal weights and implied weights parsimony, and the maximum likelihood and Bayesian Mk model. We find that consistent (low homoplasy) datasets render method choice largely irrelevant, as all methods perform well with high consistency (low homoplasy) datasets, but the largest discrepancies in accuracy occur with low consistency datasets (high homoplasy). In such cases, the Bayesian Mk model is significantly more accurate than alternative models and implied weights parsimony never significantly outperforms the Bayesian Mk model. When poorly supported branches are collapsed, the Bayesian Mk model recovers trees with higher resolution compared to other methods. As it is not possible to assess homoplasy independently of a tree estimate, the Bayesian Mk model emerges as the most reliable approach for categorical morphological analyses.     

Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology

One of the lasting controversies in phylogenetic inference is the degree to which specific evolutionary models should influence the choice of methods. Model‐based approaches to phylogenetic inference (likelihood, Bayesian) are defended on the premise that without explicit statistical models there is no science, and parsimony is defended on the grounds that it provides the best rationalization of the data, while refraining from assigning specific probabilities to trees or character‐state reconstructions. Authors who favour model‐based approaches often focus on the statistical properties of the methods and models themselves, but this is of only limited use in deciding the best method for phylogenetic inference—such decision also requires considering the conditions of evolution that prevail in nature. Another approach is to compare the performance of parsimony and model‐based methods in simulations, which traditionally have been used to defend the use of models of evolution for DNA sequences. Some recent papers, however, have promoted the use of model‐based approaches to phylogenetic inference for discrete morphological data as well. These papers simulated data under models already known to be unfavourable to parsimony, and modelled morphological evolution as if it evolved just like DNA, with probabilities of change for all characters changing in concert along tree branches. The present paper discusses these issues, showing that under reasonable and less restrictive models of evolution for discrete characters, equally weighted parsimony performs as well or better than model‐based methods, and that parsimony under implied weights clearly outperforms all other methods.     

Phylogeny of eusocial Lasioglossum reveals multiple losses of eusociality within a primitively eusocial clade of bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)

We performed a phylogenetic analysis of the species, species groups, and subgenera within the predominantly eusocial lineage of Lasioglossum (the Hemihalictus series) based on three protein coding genes: mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I, nuclear elongation factor 1alpha and long-wavelength rhodopsin. The entire data set consisted of 3421 aligned nucleotide sites, 854 of which were parsimony informative. Analyses by equal weights parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods yielded good resolution among the 53 taxa/populations, with strong bootstrap support and high posterior probabilities for most nodes. There was no significant incongruence among genes, and parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods yielded congruent results. We mapped social behavior onto the resulting tree for 42 of the taxa/populations to infer the likely history of social evolution within Lasioglossum. Our results indicate that eusociality had a single origin within Lasioglossum. Within the predominantly eusocial clade, however, there have been multiple (six) reversals from eusociality to solitary nesting, social polymorphism, or social parasitism, suggesting that these reversals may be more common in primitively eusocial Hymenoptera than previously anticipated. Our results support the view that eusociality is hard to evolve but easily lost. This conclusion is potentially important for understanding the early evolution of the advanced eusocial insects, such as ants, termites, and corbiculate bees.     

Distinguishing Felsenstein Zone from Farris Zone Using Neural Networks

Maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony are two key methods for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Under certain conditions, each of these two methods can perform more or less efficiently, resulting in unresolved or disputed phylogenies. We show that a neural network can distinguish between four-taxon alignments that were evolved under conditions susceptible to either long-branch attraction or long-branch repulsion. When likelihood and parsimony methods are discordant, the neural network can provide insight as to which tree reconstruction method is best suited to the alignment. When applied to the contentious case of Strepsiptera evolution, our method shows robust support for the current scientific view, that is, it places Strepsiptera with beetles, distant from flies.     

GeneRax: A Tool for Species-Tree-Aware Maximum Likelihood-Based Gene Family Tree Inference under Gene Duplication,Transfer, and Loss

Inferring phylogenetic trees for individual homologous gene families is difficult because alignments are often too short, and thus contain insufficient signal, while substitution models inevitably fail to capture the complexity of the evolutionary processes. To overcome these challenges, species-tree-aware methods also leverage information from a putative species tree. However, only few methods are available that implement a full likelihood framework or account for horizontal gene transfers. Furthermore, these methods often require expensive data preprocessing (e.g., computing bootstrap trees) and rely on approximations and heuristics that limit the degree of tree space exploration. Here, we present GeneRax, the first maximum likelihood species-tree-aware phylogenetic inference software. It simultaneously accounts for substitutions at the sequence level as well as gene level events, such as duplication, transfer, and loss relying on established maximum likelihood optimization algorithms. GeneRax can infer rooted phylogenetic trees for multiple gene families, directly from the per-gene sequence alignments and a rooted, yet undated, species tree. We show that compared with competing tools, on simulated data GeneRax infers trees that are the closest to the true tree in 90% of the simulations in terms of relative Robinson–Foulds distance. On empirical data sets, GeneRax is the fastest among all tested methods when starting from aligned sequences, and it infers trees with the highest likelihood score, based on our model. GeneRax completed tree inferences and reconciliations for 1,099 Cyanobacteria families in 8 min on 512 CPU cores. Thus, its parallelization scheme enables large-scale analyses. GeneRax is available under GNU GPL at https://github.com/BenoitMorel/GeneRax (last accessed June 17, 2020).       

Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock--a simulation study

We conducted a simulation study of the phylogenetic methods UPGMA, neighbor joining, maximum parsimony, and maximum likelihood for a five-taxon tree under a molecular clock. The parameter space included a small region where maximum parsimony is inconsistent, so we tested inconsistency correction for parsimony and distance correction for neighbor joining. As expected, corrected parsimony was consistent. For these data, maximum likelihood with the clock assumption outperformed each of the other methods tested. The distance-based methods performed marginally better than did maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood without the clock assumption. Data correction was generally detrimental to accuracy, especially for short sequence lengths. We identified another region of the parameter space where, although consistent for a given method, some incorrect trees were each selected with up to twice the frequency of the correct (generating) tree for sequences of bounded length. These incorrect trees are those where the outgroup has been incorrectly placed. In addition to this problem, the placement of the outgroup sequence can have a confounding effect on the ingroup tree, whereby the ingroup is correct when using the ingroup sequences alone, but with the inclusion of the outgroup the ingroup tree becomes incorrect.     

Estimating phylogenetic trees from pairwise likelihoods and posterior probabilities of substitution counts

The field of phylogenetic tree estimation has been dominated by three broad classes of methods: distance-based approaches, parsimony and likelihood-based methods (including maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian approaches). Here we introduce two new approaches to tree inference: pairwise likelihood estimation and a distance-based method that estimates the number of substitutions along the paths through the tree. Our results include the derivation of the formulae for the probability that two leaves will be identical at a site given a number of substitutions along the path connecting them. We also derive the posterior probability of the number of substitutions along a path between two sequences. The calculations for the posterior probabilities are exact for group-based, symmetric models of character evolution, but are only approximate for more general models.