Evaluating methods for phylogenomic analyses, and a new phylogeny for a major frog clade (Hyloidea) based on 2214 loci

Jeffrey W. Streicher, Elizabeth C. Miller, Pablo C. Guerrero, Claudio Correa, Juan C. Ortiz, Andrew J. Crawford, Marcio R. Pie, John J Wiens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Phylogenomic approaches offer a wealth of data, but a bewildering diversity of methodological choices. These choices can strongly affect the resulting topologies. Here, we explore two controversial approaches (binning genes into “supergenes” and inclusion of only rapidly evolving sites), using new data from hyloid frogs. Hyloid frogs encompass ∼53% of frog species, including true toads (Bufonidae), glassfrogs (Centrolenidae), poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), and treefrogs (Hylidae). Many hyloid families are well-established, but relationships among these families have remained difficult to resolve. We generated a dataset of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) for 50 ingroup species, including 18 of 19 hyloid families and up to 2214 loci spanning >800,000 aligned base pairs. We evaluated these two general approaches (binning, rapid sites only) based primarily on their ability to recover and strongly support well-established clades. Data were analyzed using concatenated likelihood and coalescent species-tree methods (NJst, ASTRAL). Binning strongly affected inferred relationships, whereas use of only rapidly evolving sites did not (indicating ∼87% of the data contributed little information). The optimal approaches for maximizing recovery and support of well-established clades were concatenated likelihood analysis and the use of a limited number of naive bins (statistical binning gave more problematic results). These two optimal approaches converged on similar relationships among hyloid families, and resolved them with generally strong support. The relationships found were very different from most previous estimates of hyloid phylogeny, and a new classification is proposed. The new phylogeny also suggests an intriguing biogeographical scenario, in which hyloids originated in southern South America before radiating throughout the world.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)128-143
Number of pages16
JournalMolecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Volume119
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018

Fingerprint

Phylogeny
frog
Anura
frogs
phylogeny
Bufonidae
loci
Hylidae
probability analysis
South America
Poisons
methodology
Base Pairing
topology
toad
taxonomy
method
family
gene
Genes

Keywords

  • Amphibia
  • Anura
  • Biogeography
  • Naive binning
  • Phylogenomics
  • Statistical binning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Molecular Biology
  • Genetics

Cite this

Evaluating methods for phylogenomic analyses, and a new phylogeny for a major frog clade (Hyloidea) based on 2214 loci. / Streicher, Jeffrey W.; Miller, Elizabeth C.; Guerrero, Pablo C.; Correa, Claudio; Ortiz, Juan C.; Crawford, Andrew J.; Pie, Marcio R.; Wiens, John J.

In: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol. 119, 01.02.2018, p. 128-143.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Streicher, Jeffrey W. ; Miller, Elizabeth C. ; Guerrero, Pablo C. ; Correa, Claudio ; Ortiz, Juan C. ; Crawford, Andrew J. ; Pie, Marcio R. ; Wiens, John J. / Evaluating methods for phylogenomic analyses, and a new phylogeny for a major frog clade (Hyloidea) based on 2214 loci. In: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2018 ; Vol. 119. pp. 128-143.
@article{930ce4b3028d4c87900fce49d014ec8d,
title = "Evaluating methods for phylogenomic analyses, and a new phylogeny for a major frog clade (Hyloidea) based on 2214 loci",
abstract = "Phylogenomic approaches offer a wealth of data, but a bewildering diversity of methodological choices. These choices can strongly affect the resulting topologies. Here, we explore two controversial approaches (binning genes into “supergenes” and inclusion of only rapidly evolving sites), using new data from hyloid frogs. Hyloid frogs encompass ∼53{\%} of frog species, including true toads (Bufonidae), glassfrogs (Centrolenidae), poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), and treefrogs (Hylidae). Many hyloid families are well-established, but relationships among these families have remained difficult to resolve. We generated a dataset of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) for 50 ingroup species, including 18 of 19 hyloid families and up to 2214 loci spanning >800,000 aligned base pairs. We evaluated these two general approaches (binning, rapid sites only) based primarily on their ability to recover and strongly support well-established clades. Data were analyzed using concatenated likelihood and coalescent species-tree methods (NJst, ASTRAL). Binning strongly affected inferred relationships, whereas use of only rapidly evolving sites did not (indicating ∼87{\%} of the data contributed little information). The optimal approaches for maximizing recovery and support of well-established clades were concatenated likelihood analysis and the use of a limited number of naive bins (statistical binning gave more problematic results). These two optimal approaches converged on similar relationships among hyloid families, and resolved them with generally strong support. The relationships found were very different from most previous estimates of hyloid phylogeny, and a new classification is proposed. The new phylogeny also suggests an intriguing biogeographical scenario, in which hyloids originated in southern South America before radiating throughout the world.",
keywords = "Amphibia, Anura, Biogeography, Naive binning, Phylogenomics, Statistical binning",
author = "Streicher, {Jeffrey W.} and Miller, {Elizabeth C.} and Guerrero, {Pablo C.} and Claudio Correa and Ortiz, {Juan C.} and Crawford, {Andrew J.} and Pie, {Marcio R.} and Wiens, {John J}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ympev.2017.10.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "119",
pages = "128--143",
journal = "Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution",
issn = "1055-7903",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating methods for phylogenomic analyses, and a new phylogeny for a major frog clade (Hyloidea) based on 2214 loci

AU - Streicher, Jeffrey W.

AU - Miller, Elizabeth C.

AU - Guerrero, Pablo C.

AU - Correa, Claudio

AU - Ortiz, Juan C.

AU - Crawford, Andrew J.

AU - Pie, Marcio R.

AU - Wiens, John J

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Phylogenomic approaches offer a wealth of data, but a bewildering diversity of methodological choices. These choices can strongly affect the resulting topologies. Here, we explore two controversial approaches (binning genes into “supergenes” and inclusion of only rapidly evolving sites), using new data from hyloid frogs. Hyloid frogs encompass ∼53% of frog species, including true toads (Bufonidae), glassfrogs (Centrolenidae), poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), and treefrogs (Hylidae). Many hyloid families are well-established, but relationships among these families have remained difficult to resolve. We generated a dataset of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) for 50 ingroup species, including 18 of 19 hyloid families and up to 2214 loci spanning >800,000 aligned base pairs. We evaluated these two general approaches (binning, rapid sites only) based primarily on their ability to recover and strongly support well-established clades. Data were analyzed using concatenated likelihood and coalescent species-tree methods (NJst, ASTRAL). Binning strongly affected inferred relationships, whereas use of only rapidly evolving sites did not (indicating ∼87% of the data contributed little information). The optimal approaches for maximizing recovery and support of well-established clades were concatenated likelihood analysis and the use of a limited number of naive bins (statistical binning gave more problematic results). These two optimal approaches converged on similar relationships among hyloid families, and resolved them with generally strong support. The relationships found were very different from most previous estimates of hyloid phylogeny, and a new classification is proposed. The new phylogeny also suggests an intriguing biogeographical scenario, in which hyloids originated in southern South America before radiating throughout the world.

AB - Phylogenomic approaches offer a wealth of data, but a bewildering diversity of methodological choices. These choices can strongly affect the resulting topologies. Here, we explore two controversial approaches (binning genes into “supergenes” and inclusion of only rapidly evolving sites), using new data from hyloid frogs. Hyloid frogs encompass ∼53% of frog species, including true toads (Bufonidae), glassfrogs (Centrolenidae), poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), and treefrogs (Hylidae). Many hyloid families are well-established, but relationships among these families have remained difficult to resolve. We generated a dataset of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) for 50 ingroup species, including 18 of 19 hyloid families and up to 2214 loci spanning >800,000 aligned base pairs. We evaluated these two general approaches (binning, rapid sites only) based primarily on their ability to recover and strongly support well-established clades. Data were analyzed using concatenated likelihood and coalescent species-tree methods (NJst, ASTRAL). Binning strongly affected inferred relationships, whereas use of only rapidly evolving sites did not (indicating ∼87% of the data contributed little information). The optimal approaches for maximizing recovery and support of well-established clades were concatenated likelihood analysis and the use of a limited number of naive bins (statistical binning gave more problematic results). These two optimal approaches converged on similar relationships among hyloid families, and resolved them with generally strong support. The relationships found were very different from most previous estimates of hyloid phylogeny, and a new classification is proposed. The new phylogeny also suggests an intriguing biogeographical scenario, in which hyloids originated in southern South America before radiating throughout the world.

KW - Amphibia

KW - Anura

KW - Biogeography

KW - Naive binning

KW - Phylogenomics

KW - Statistical binning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034034890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034034890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.10.013

DO - 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.10.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 29111477

AN - SCOPUS:85034034890

VL - 119

SP - 128

EP - 143

JO - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

JF - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

SN - 1055-7903

ER -