Difference between revisions of "BIO Assignment Week 7"

From "A B C"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 749: Line 749:
  
 
-->
 
-->
 +
 +
{{Vspace}}
  
 
==Links and Resources==
 
==Links and Resources==

Revision as of 05:32, 29 November 2016

Assignment for Week 7
Phylogenetic Analysis

< Assignment 6 Assignment 8 >

Note! This assignment is currently active. All significant changes will be announced on the mailing list.

 
 



 


 
Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky

... but does evolution make sense in the light of biology?


 
 

As we have seen in the previous assignments, the Mbp1 transcription factor has homologues in all other fungi, yet there is not always a clear one-to-one mapping between members of a family in distantly related species. It appears that various systems of APSES domain transcription factors have evolved independently. Of course this bears directly on our notion of function - what it means to say that two genes in different organisms have the "same" function. In case two organisms both have an orthologous gene for the same, distinct function, calling these functions "the same" may be warranted. But what if that gene has duplicated in one species, and the two paralogues now perform different, related functions in one organism? Theses two are still orthologues to both their homologues in the other species, but now we expect functionally significant residues to have adapted to the new - and possibly distinct - roles of each paralogue. In order to be able to even ask such questions, we need to make the evolutionary history of gene families explicit. This is the domain of phylogenetic analysis. We can ask questions like: how many paralogues did the cenancestor of a clade possess? Which of these underwent additional duplications in the phylogenesis of the organism I am studying? Did any genes get lost? And - adding additional biological insight to the picture - did the observed duplications lead to the "invention" of new biological systems? When was that? And perhaps even: how did the species benefit from this event?

We will develop this kind of analysis in this assignment. In the previous assignment you have established which gene in your species is the reciprocally most closely related orthologue to yeast Mbp1 (with reciprocal best match) and you have identified the full complement of APSES domain genes in your assigned organism (as a result of your PSI-BLAST search). In this assignment, we will analyse these genes' evolutionary relationship and compare it to the evolutionary relationship of other fungal APSES domains. The goal is to define families of related transcription factors and their evolutionary history. All APSES domain annotations are now available in your protein "database". Now we will attempt to compute the phylogram for these proteins. The goal is to identify orthologues and paralogues.

A number of excellent tools for phylogenetic analysis exist; general purpose packages include the (free) PHYLIP package, the MEGA package and the (commercial) PAUP* package. Of these, only MEGA is still under active development, although PHYLIP still functions perfectly (except for problems with graphical windows under Mac OS 10.6). Specialized tools for tree-building include Treepuzzle or Mr. Bayes. This assignment is constructed around programs that are available in PHYLIP, however you are welcome to use other tools that fulfill a similar purpose if you wish. In this field, researchers consider trees that have been built with ML (maximum likelihood) methods to be more reliable than trees that are built with parsimony methods, or distance methods such as NJ (Neighbor Joining). However ML methods are also much more compute-intensive. Just like with multiple sequence alignments, some algorithms will come closer to guessing the truth and others will not and usually it is hard to tell which is the more trustworthy of two diverging results. The prudent researcher tries out alternatives and forms her own opinion. Specifically, we may usually assume results that converge when computed with different algorithms, to be more reliable than those that depend strongly on a particular algorithm, parameters, or details of input data.

In this assignment, we will take a computational shortcut, (something you should not do in real life). We will skip establishing the reliability of the tree with a bootstrap procedure, i.e. repeat the tree-building a hundred times with partial data and see which branches and groupings are robust and which depend on the details of the data. (If you are interested, have a look here for the procedure for running a bootstrap analysis on the data set you are working with, but this may require a day or so of computing time on your computer.) In this assignment, we will simply acknowledge that bifurcations that are very close to each other have not been "resolved" and be appropriately cautious in our inferences. In phylogenetic analysis, not all lines a program draws are equally trustworthy. Don't take the trees as a given fact just because a program suggests this. Look at the evidence, include independent information where available, use your reasoning, and analyse the results critically. As you will see, there are some facts that we know for certain: we know which species the genes come from, and we can (usually) make good assumptions about the relationship of the species themselves - the history of speciation events that underlies all evolution of genes. This is extremely helpful information for our work.


If you would like to review concepts of trees, clades, LCAs, OTUs and the like, I have linked an excellent and very understandable introduction-level article on phylogenetic analysis here and to the resource section at the bottom of this page.

Baldauf (2003) Phylogeny for the faint of heart: a tutorial. Trends Genet 19:345-51. (pmid: 12801728)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Phylogenetic trees seem to be finding ever broader applications, and researchers from very different backgrounds are becoming interested in what they might have to say. This tutorial aims to introduce the basics of building and interpreting phylogenetic trees. It is intended for those wanting to understand better what they are looking at when they look at someone else's trees or to begin learning how to build their own. Topics covered include: how to read a tree, assembling a dataset, multiple sequence alignment (how it works and when it does not), phylogenetic methods, bootstrap analysis and long-branch artefacts, and software and resources.


 

R packages that may be useful include the following:

  • R task view Phylogenetics - this task-view gives an excellent, curated overview of the important R-packages in the domain.
  • package ape - general purpose phylogenetic analysis, but (as far as I can tell ape only supports analysis with DNA sequences).
  • package ips - wrapper for MrBayes, Beast, RAxML "heavy-duty" phylogenetic analysis packages.
  • package Rphylip - Wrapper for Phylip, the most versatile set of phylogenetic inference tools.


 

Preparing input alignments

 

You have previously collected homologous sequences and their annotations. We will use these as input for phylogenetic analysis. But let's discuss first how such an input file should be constructed.


 

Principles

In order to use molecular sequences for the construction of phylogenetic trees, you have to build a multiple alignment first. This is important: phylogenetic analysis does not build alignments, nor does it revise alignments, it analyses them after the alignment has been computed. A precondition for the analysis to be meaningful is that all rows of sequences have to contain the exact same number of characters and to hold aligned characters in corresponding positions (i.e. columns). The program's inferences are made on a column-wise basis and if your columns contain data from unrelated positions, the inferences are going to be questionable. Clearly, in order for tree-estimation to work, one must not include fragments of sequence which have evolved under a different evolutionary model as all others, e.g. after domain fusion, or after accommodating large stretches of indels. Thus it is appropriate to edit the sequences and pare them down to a most characteristic subset of amino acids. The goal is not to be as comprehensive as possible, but to input those columns of aligned residues that will best represent the true phylogenetic relationships between the sequences.


The result of the tree construction is a decision about the most likely evolutionary relationships. Fundamentally, tree-construction programs decide which sequences had common ancestors.


Distance based phylogeny programs start by using sequence comparisons to estimate evolutionary distances:

  • they apply a model of evolution such as a mutation data matrix, to calculate a score for each pair of sequences,
  • this score is stored in a "distance matrix" ...
  • ... and used to estimate a tree that groups sequences with close relationships together. (e.g. by using an NJ, Neigbor Joining, algorithm).

They are fast, can work on large numbers of sequences, but are less accurate if genes evolve at different rates.

Parsimony based phylogeny programs build a tree that minimizes the number of mutation events that are required to get from a common ancestral sequence to all observed sequences. They take all columns into account, not just a single number per sequence pair, as the Distance Methods do. For closely related sequences they work very well, but they construct inaccurate trees when they can't make good estimates for the required number of sequence changes.


ML, or Maximum Likelihood methods attempt to find the tree for which the observed sequences would be the most likely under a particular evolutionary model. They are based on a rigorous statistical framework and yield the most robust results. But they are also quite compute intensive and a tree of the size that we are building in this assignment is a challenge for the resources of common workstation (runs about an hour on my computer). If the problem is too large, one may split a large problem into smaller, obvious subtrees (e.g. analysing orthologues as a group, only including a few paralogues for comparison) and then merge the smaller trees; this way even very large problems can become tractable.

ML methods suffer less from "long-branch attraction" - the phenomenon that weakly similar sequences can be grouped inappropriately close together in a tree due to spuriously shared differences.


Bayesian methods don't estimate the tree that gives the highest likelihood for the observed data, but find the most probably tree, given that the data have been observed. If this sounds conceptually similar to you, then you are not wrong. However, the approaches employ very different algorithms. And Bayesian methods need a "prior" on trees before observation.



 

Choosing sequences

 

To illustrate the principle we will construct input files by joining APSES domain and Ankyrin domain sequences and for this we will use the Prosite annotations we have collected for the reference set of sequences and your YFO sequences.

Task:

  • Open RStudio.
  • Choose File → Recent Projects → BCH441_2016.
  • Pull the latest version of the project repository from GitHub.
  • type init()
  • Open the file BCH441_A07.R and work through PART ONE: Choosing sequences.


 

Adding an Outgroup

 

An outgroup is a sequence that is more distantly related to all of the other sequences than any of them are to each other. This allows us to root the tree, because the root - the last common ancestor to all - must be somewhere on the branch that connects the outgroup to the rest. And whenever a molecular clock is assumed, the branching point that connects the outgroup can be assumed to be the oldest divergence event. Having a root that we can compare to the phylogram of species makes the tree interpretation much more intuitive. In our case, we are facing the problem that our species cover all of the known fungi, thus we can' rightly say that any of them are more distant to the rest. We have to look outside the fungi. The problem is, outside of the fungi there are no proteins with APSES domains. We can take the E. coli KilA-N domain sequence - a known, distant homologue to the APSES domain instead, even though it only aligns to a part of the APSES domains.

Here is the KilA-N domain sequence in the E. coli Kil-A protein: 

>WP_000200358.1 hypothetical protein [Escherichia coli]
MTSFQLSLISREIDGEIIHLRAKDGYINATSMCRTAGKLLSDYTRLKTTQEFFDELSRDMGIPISELIQS
FKGGRPENQGTWVHPDIAINLAQWLSPKFAVQVSRWVREWMSGERTTAEMPVHLKRYMVNRSRIPHTHFS
ILNELTFNLVAPLEQAGYTLPEKMVPDISQGRVFSQWLRDNRNVEPKTFPTYDHEYPDGRVYPARLYPNE
YLADFKEHFNNIWLPQYAPKYFADRDKKALALIEKIMLPNLDGNEQF

E. coli KilA-N protein. Residues that do not align with APSES domains are shown in grey.

The assignment R - code contains code to add it to the group of APSES sequences.



Task:

  • Continue with the R-code: PART TWO: Multiple sequence alignment


 

Reviewing and Editing alignments

 

As discussed in the lecture, it is usually necessary to edit a multiple sequence alignment to make it suitable for phylogenetic inference. Here are the principles:

All characters in a column should be related by homology.

This implies the following rules of thumb:

  • Remove all stretches of residues in which the alignment appears ambiguous (not just highly variable, but ambiguous regarding the aligned positions).
  • Remove all frayed N- and C- termini, especially regions in which not all sequences that are being compared appear homologous and that may stem from unrelated domains. You want to only retain the APSES domains. All the extra residues from the YFO sequence can be deleted.
  • Remove all gapped regions that appear to be alignment artefacts due to inappropriate input sequences.
  • Remove all but approximately one column from gapped regions in those cases where the presence of several related insertions suggest that the indel is real, and not just an alignment artefact. (Some researchers simply remove all gapped regions).
  • Remove sections N- and C- terminal of gaps where the alignment appears questionable.
  • If the sequences fit on a single line you will save yourself potential trouble with block-wise vs. interleaved input. If you do run out of memory try removing columns of sequence. Or remove species that you are less interested in from the alignment.
  • Move your outgroup sequence to the first line of your alignment, since this is where PHYLIP will look for it by default.


Indels are even more of a problem than usual. Strictly speaking, the similarity score of an alignment program as well as the distance score of a phylogeny program are not calculated for an ordered sequence, but for a sum of independent values, one for each aligned columns of characters. The order of the columns does not change the score. However in an optimal sequence alignment with gaps, this is no longer strictly true since a one-character gap creation has a different penalty score than a one-character gap extension! Most alignment programs use a model with a constant gap insertion penalty and a linear gap extension penalty. This is not rigorously justified from biology, but parametrized (or you could say "tweaked") to correspond to our observations. However, most phylogeny programs do not work in this way. They strictly operate on columns of characters and treat a gap character just like a residue with the one letter code "-". Thus gap insertion- and extension- characters get the same score. For short indels, this underestimates the distance between pairs of sequences, since any evolutionary model should reflect the fact that gaps are much less likely than point mutations. If the gap is very long though, all events are counted individually as many single substitutions (rather than one lengthy one) and this overestimates the distance. And it gets worse: long stretches of gaps can make sequences appear similar in a way that is not justified, just because they are identical in the "-" character. It is therefore common and acceptable to edit gaps in the alignment and delete all but a few columns of gapped sequence, or to remove such columns altogether.



 
 


(Possible) steps in editing a multiple sequence alignment towards a PHYLIP input file. a: raw alignment (CLUSTAL format); b: sequences assembled into single lines; c: columns to be deleted highlighted in red - 1, 3 and 4: large gaps; 2: uncertain alignment and 5: frayed C-terminus: both would put non-homologous characters into the same column; d: input data for PHYLIP: names for sequences must not be longer than 10 characters, the first line must contain the number of sequences and the sequence length. PHYLIP is very picky about incorrectly formatted input, read the PHYLIP sequence format guide. Fortunately Rphylip does the formatting step for you.


There is more to learn about this important step of working with aligned sequences, here is an overview of the literature on various algorithms and tools that are available.

Talavera & Castresana (2007) Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol 56:564-77. (pmid: 17654362)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Alignment quality may have as much impact on phylogenetic reconstruction as the phylogenetic methods used. Not only the alignment algorithm, but also the method used to deal with the most problematic alignment regions, may have a critical effect on the final tree. Although some authors remove such problematic regions, either manually or using automatic methods, in order to improve phylogenetic performance, others prefer to keep such regions to avoid losing any information. Our aim in the present work was to examine whether phylogenetic reconstruction improves after alignment cleaning or not. Using simulated protein alignments with gaps, we tested the relative performance in diverse phylogenetic analyses of the whole alignments versus the alignments with problematic regions removed with our previously developed Gblocks program. We also tested the performance of more or less stringent conditions in the selection of blocks. Alignments constructed with different alignment methods (ClustalW, Mafft, and Probcons) were used to estimate phylogenetic trees by maximum likelihood, neighbor joining, and parsimony. We show that, in most alignment conditions, and for alignments that are not too short, removal of blocks leads to better trees. That is, despite losing some information, there is an increase in the actual phylogenetic signal. Overall, the best trees are obtained by maximum-likelihood reconstruction of alignments cleaned by Gblocks. In general, a relaxed selection of blocks is better for short alignment, whereas a stringent selection is more adequate for longer ones. Finally, we show that cleaned alignments produce better topologies although, paradoxically, with lower bootstrap. This indicates that divergent and problematic alignment regions may lead, when present, to apparently better supported although, in fact, more biased topologies.

Capella-Gutiérrez et al. (2009) trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25:1972-3. (pmid: 19505945)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] SUMMARY: Multiple sequence alignments are central to many areas of bioinformatics. It has been shown that the removal of poorly aligned regions from an alignment increases the quality of subsequent analyses. Such an alignment trimming phase is complicated in large-scale phylogenetic analyses that deal with thousands of alignments. Here, we present trimAl, a tool for automated alignment trimming, which is especially suited for large-scale phylogenetic analyses. trimAl can consider several parameters, alone or in multiple combinations, for selecting the most reliable positions in the alignment. These include the proportion of sequences with a gap, the level of amino acid similarity and, if several alignments for the same set of sequences are provided, the level of consistency across different alignments. Moreover, trimAl can automatically select the parameters to be used in each specific alignment so that the signal-to-noise ratio is optimized. AVAILABILITY: trimAl has been written in C++, it is portable to all platforms. trimAl is freely available for download (http://trimal.cgenomics.org) and can be used online through the Phylemon web server (http://phylemon2.bioinfo.cipf.es/). Supplementary Material is available at http://trimal.cgenomics.org/publications.

Blouin et al. (2009) Reproducing the manual annotation of multiple sequence alignments using a SVM classifier. Bioinformatics 25:3093-8. (pmid: 19770262)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] MOTIVATION: Aligning protein sequences with the best possible accuracy requires sophisticated algorithms. Since the optimal alignment is not guaranteed to be the correct one, it is expected that even the best alignment will contain sites that do not respect the assumption of positional homology. Because formulating rules to identify these sites is difficult, it is common practice to manually remove them. Although considered necessary in some cases, manual editing is time consuming and not reproducible. We present here an automated editing method based on the classification of 'valid' and 'invalid' sites. RESULTS: A support vector machine (SVM) classifier is trained to reproduce the decisions made during manual editing with an accuracy of 95.0%. This implies that manual editing can be made reproducible and applied to large-scale analyses. We further demonstrate that it is possible to retrain/extend the training of the classifier by providing examples of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) annotation. Near optimal training can be achieved with only 1000 annotated sites, or roughly three samples of protein sequence alignments. AVAILABILITY: This method is implemented in the software MANUEL, licensed under the GPL. A web-based application for single and batch job is available at http://fester.cs.dal.ca/manuel. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Penn et al. (2010) GUIDANCE: a web server for assessing alignment confidence scores. Nucleic Acids Res 38:W23-8. (pmid: 20497997)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Evaluating the accuracy of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is critical for virtually every comparative sequence analysis that uses an MSA as input. Here we present the GUIDANCE web-server, a user-friendly, open access tool for the identification of unreliable alignment regions. The web-server accepts as input a set of unaligned sequences. The server aligns the sequences and provides a simple graphic visualization of the confidence score of each column, residue and sequence of an alignment, using a color-coding scheme. The method is generic and the user is allowed to choose the alignment algorithm (ClustalW, MAFFT and PRANK are supported) as well as any type of molecular sequences (nucleotide, protein or codon sequences). The server implements two different algorithms for evaluating confidence scores: (i) the heads-or-tails (HoT) method, which measures alignment uncertainty due to co-optimal solutions; (ii) the GUIDANCE method, which measures the robustness of the alignment to guide-tree uncertainty. The server projects the confidence scores onto the MSA and points to columns and sequences that are unreliably aligned. These can be automatically removed in preparation for downstream analyses. GUIDANCE is freely available for use at http://guidance.tau.ac.il.

Rajan (2013) A method of alignment masking for refining the phylogenetic signal of multiple sequence alignments. Mol Biol Evol 30:689-712. (pmid: 23193120)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Inaccurate inference of positional homologies in multiple sequence alignments and systematic errors introduced by alignment heuristics obfuscate phylogenetic inference. Alignment masking, the elimination of phylogenetically uninformative or misleading sites from an alignment before phylogenetic analysis, is a common practice in phylogenetic analysis. Although masking is often done manually, automated methods are necessary to handle the much larger data sets being prepared today. In this study, we introduce the concept of subsplits and demonstrate their use in extracting phylogenetic signal from alignments. We design a clustering approach for alignment masking where each cluster contains similar columns-similarity being defined on the basis of compatible subsplits; our approach then identifies noisy clusters and eliminates them. Trees inferred from the columns in the retained clusters are found to be topologically closer to the reference trees. We test our method on numerous standard benchmarks (both synthetic and biological data sets) and compare its performance with other methods of alignment masking. We find that our method can eliminate sites more accurately than other methods, particularly on divergent data, and can improve the topologies of the inferred trees in likelihood-based analyses. Software available upon request from the author.


 

Sequence masking with R

 

As you saw while inspecting the multiple sequence alignment, there are regions that are poorly suited for phylogenetic analysis due to the large numbers of gaps.

A good approach to edit the alignment is to import your sequences into Jalview and remove uncertain columns by hand.

But for this assignment, let's write code for a simple masking heuristic.


 

Task:

  • Head back to the RStudio project and work through PART THREE: reviewing and editing alignments


 

Calculating trees

 

In this section we perform the actual phylogenetic calculation.


 

Task:

  • Download the PHYLIP suite of programs from the Phylip homepage and install it on your computer.
  • Return to the RStudio project and work through PART FOUR: Calculating trees.


 


Analysing your tree

 

In order to analyse your tree, you need a species tree as reference. This really is an absolute prerequisite to make your expectations about the observed tree explicit. Fortunately we have all species nicely documented in our database.


 

The reference species tree

 

Task:

  • Execute the following R command to create an Entrez command that will retrieve all taxonomy records for the species in your database:
cat(paste(paste(c(myDB$taxonomy$ID, "83333"), "[taxid]", sep=""), collapse=" OR "))
  • Copy the Entrez command, and enter it into the search field of the NCBI taxonomy page. Click on Search. The resulting page should have twelve species listed - ten "reference" fungi, E. coli (as the outgroup), and YFO. Make sure YFO is included! If it's not there, you did something wrong that needs to be fixed.
  • Click on the Summary options near the top-left of the page, and select Common Tree. This places all the species into the universal tree of life and identifies their relationships.
  • At the top, there is an option to Save as ... and the option to select a format to save the tree in. Select Phylip Tree as the format and click the Save as button. The file phyliptree.phy will be downloaded to your computer into your default download directory. Move it to the directory you have defined as PROJECTDIR.
  • Open the file in a text-editor. This is a tree, specified in the so-called "Newick format". The topology of the tree is defined through the brackets, and the branch-lengths are all the same: this is a cladogram, not a phylogram. The tree contains the long names for the species/strains and for our purposes we really need the "biCodes" instead. I can't think of a very elegant way to make that change programmatically, so just go ahead and replace the species names (not the taxonomic ranks though) with their biCode in your text editor. Remove all the single quotes, and replace any remaining blanks in names with an underscore. Take care however not to delete any colons or parentheses. Save the file.

My version looks like this - Your version must have YFO somewhere in the tree.. 

(
'ESCCO':4,
(
(
'PUCGR':4,
'USTMA':4,
(
'WALME':4,
'COPCI':4,
'CRYNE':4
)Agaricomycotina:4
)Basidiomycota:4,
(
(
(
'ASPNI':4,
'BIPOR':4,
'NEUCR':4
)leotiomyceta:4,
'SACCE':4
)saccharomyceta:4,
'SCHPO':4
)Ascomycota:4
)Dikarya:4
)'cellular organisms':4;
  • Now read the tree in R and plot it.
# Download the EDITED phyliptree.phy 
orgTree <- read.tree("phyliptree.phy")

# Plot the tree in a new window
dev.new(width=6, height=3)
plot(orgTree, cex=1.0, root.edge=TRUE, no.margin=TRUE)
nodelabels(text=orgTree$node.label, cex=0.6, adj=0.2, bg="#D4F2DA")


 

I have constructed a cladogram for many of the species we are analysing, based on data published for 1551 fungal ribosomal sequences. The six reference species are included. Such reference trees from rRNA data are a standard method of phylogenetic analysis, supported by the assumption that rRNA sequences are monophyletic and have evolved under comparable selective pressure in all species.


 
FungiCladogram.jpg


Cladogram of the "reference" fungi studied in the assignments. This cladogram is based on a tree returned by the NCBI Common Tree. It is thus a digest of cladistic relationships, not a representation of a specific molecular phylogeny.

Alternatively, you can look up your species in the latest version of the species tree for the fungi and add it to the tree by hand while resolving the trifurcations. See:

Ebersberger et al. (2012) A consistent phylogenetic backbone for the fungi. Mol Biol Evol 29:1319-34. (pmid: 22114356)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] The kingdom of fungi provides model organisms for biotechnology, cell biology, genetics, and life sciences in general. Only when their phylogenetic relationships are stably resolved, can individual results from fungal research be integrated into a holistic picture of biology. However, and despite recent progress, many deep relationships within the fungi remain unclear. Here, we present the first phylogenomic study of an entire eukaryotic kingdom that uses a consistency criterion to strengthen phylogenetic conclusions. We reason that branches (splits) recovered with independent data and different tree reconstruction methods are likely to reflect true evolutionary relationships. Two complementary phylogenomic data sets based on 99 fungal genomes and 109 fungal expressed sequence tag (EST) sets analyzed with four different tree reconstruction methods shed light from different angles on the fungal tree of life. Eleven additional data sets address specifically the phylogenetic position of Blastocladiomycota, Ustilaginomycotina, and Dothideomycetes, respectively. The combined evidence from the resulting trees supports the deep-level stability of the fungal groups toward a comprehensive natural system of the fungi. In addition, our analysis reveals methodologically interesting aspects. Enrichment for EST encoded data-a common practice in phylogenomic analyses-introduces a strong bias toward slowly evolving and functionally correlated genes. Consequently, the generalization of phylogenomic data sets as collections of randomly selected genes cannot be taken for granted. A thorough characterization of the data to assess possible influences on the tree reconstruction should therefore become a standard in phylogenomic analyses.


 


Task:

  • Return to the RStudio project and continue with the script to its end. Note the deliverable at the end: to print out your trees and bring them to class.


 

Links and Resources

Literature
Szöllősi et al. (2015) Genome-scale phylogenetic analysis finds extensive gene transfer among fungi. Philos Trans R Soc Lond., B, Biol Sci 370:20140335. (pmid: 26323765)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Although the role of lateral gene transfer is well recognized in the evolution of bacteria, it is generally assumed that it has had less influence among eukaryotes. To explore this hypothesis, we compare the dynamics of genome evolution in two groups of organisms: cyanobacteria and fungi. Ancestral genomes are inferred in both clades using two types of methods: first, Count, a gene tree unaware method that models gene duplications, gains and losses to explain the observed numbers of genes present in a genome; second, ALE, a more recent gene tree-aware method that reconciles gene trees with a species tree using a model of gene duplication, loss and transfer. We compare their merits and their ability to quantify the role of transfers, and assess the impact of taxonomic sampling on their inferences. We present what we believe is compelling evidence that gene transfer plays a significant role in the evolution of fungi.

Ebersberger et al. (2012) A consistent phylogenetic backbone for the fungi. Mol Biol Evol 29:1319-34. (pmid: 22114356)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] The kingdom of fungi provides model organisms for biotechnology, cell biology, genetics, and life sciences in general. Only when their phylogenetic relationships are stably resolved, can individual results from fungal research be integrated into a holistic picture of biology. However, and despite recent progress, many deep relationships within the fungi remain unclear. Here, we present the first phylogenomic study of an entire eukaryotic kingdom that uses a consistency criterion to strengthen phylogenetic conclusions. We reason that branches (splits) recovered with independent data and different tree reconstruction methods are likely to reflect true evolutionary relationships. Two complementary phylogenomic data sets based on 99 fungal genomes and 109 fungal expressed sequence tag (EST) sets analyzed with four different tree reconstruction methods shed light from different angles on the fungal tree of life. Eleven additional data sets address specifically the phylogenetic position of Blastocladiomycota, Ustilaginomycotina, and Dothideomycetes, respectively. The combined evidence from the resulting trees supports the deep-level stability of the fungal groups toward a comprehensive natural system of the fungi. In addition, our analysis reveals methodologically interesting aspects. Enrichment for EST encoded data-a common practice in phylogenomic analyses-introduces a strong bias toward slowly evolving and functionally correlated genes. Consequently, the generalization of phylogenomic data sets as collections of randomly selected genes cannot be taken for granted. A thorough characterization of the data to assess possible influences on the tree reconstruction should therefore become a standard in phylogenomic analyses.

Marcet-Houben & Gabaldón (2009) The tree versus the forest: the fungal tree of life and the topological diversity within the yeast phylome. PLoS ONE 4:e4357. (pmid: 19190756)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] A recurrent topic in phylogenomics is the combination of various sequence alignments to reconstruct a tree that describes the evolutionary relationships within a group of species. However, such approach has been criticized for not being able to properly represent the topological diversity found among gene trees. To evaluate the representativeness of species trees based on concatenated alignments, we reconstruct several fungal species trees and compare them with the complete collection of phylogenies of genes encoded in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. We found that, despite high levels of among-gene topological variation, the species trees do represent widely supported phylogenetic relationships. Most topological discrepancies between gene and species trees are concentrated in certain conflicting nodes. We propose to map such information on the species tree so that it accounts for the levels of congruence across the genome. We identified the lack of sufficient accuracy of current alignment and phylogenetic methods as an important source for the topological diversity encountered among gene trees. Finally, we discuss the implications of the high levels of topological variation for phylogeny-based orthology prediction strategies.

Also: Nature-Scitable (2008): Reading a Phylogenetic Tree: The Meaning of Monophyletic Groups

Baldauf (2003) Phylogeny for the faint of heart: a tutorial. Trends Genet 19:345-51. (pmid: 12801728)

[ PubMed ] [ DOI ] Phylogenetic trees seem to be finding ever broader applications, and researchers from very different backgrounds are becoming interested in what they might have to say. This tutorial aims to introduce the basics of building and interpreting phylogenetic trees. It is intended for those wanting to understand better what they are looking at when they look at someone else's trees or to begin learning how to build their own. Topics covered include: how to read a tree, assembling a dataset, multiple sequence alignment (how it works and when it does not), phylogenetic methods, bootstrap analysis and long-branch artefacts, and software and resources.

Tuimala, Jarno (2006) A primer to phylogenetic analysis using the PHYLIP package.  
(pmid: None) [ Source URL ] The purpose of this tutorial is to demonstrate how to use PHYLIP, a collection of phylogenetic analysis software, and some of the options that are available. This tutorial is not intended to be a course in phylogenetics, although some phylogenetic concepts will be discussed briefly. There are other books available which cover the theoretical sides of the phylogenetic analysis, but the actual data analysis work is less well covered. Here we will mostly deal with molecular sequence data analysis in the current PHYLIP version 3.66.


Software
Sequences



 


Footnotes and references


 

Ask, if things don't work for you!

If anything about the assignment is not clear to you, please ask on the mailing list. You can be certain that others will have had similar problems. Success comes from joining the conversation.



< Assignment 6 Assignment 8 >


 

Retrieved from "http://steipe.biochemistry.utoronto.ca/abc/index.php?title=BIO_Assignment_Week_7&oldid=8910"