Testing Congruence in Phylogenomic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenomic analyses of large sets of genes or proteins have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the tree of life. However, problems arise because estimated phylogenies from individual loci often differ because of different histories, systematic bias, or stochastic error. We have developed Concaterpillar, a hierarchical clustering method based on likelihood-ratio testing that identifies congruent loci for phylogenomic analysis. Concaterpillar also includes a test for shared relative evolutionary rates between genes indicating whether they should be analyzed separately or by concatenation. In simulation studies, the performance of this method is excellent when a multiple comparison correction is applied. We analyzed a phylogenomic data set of 60 translational protein sequences from the major supergroups of eukaryotes and identified three congruent subsets of proteins. Analysis of the largest set indicates improved congruence relative to the full data set and produced a phylogeny with stronger support for five eukaryote supergroups including the Opisthokonts, the Plantae, the stramenopiles + Apicomplexa (chromalveolates), the Amoebozoa, and the Excavata. In contrast, the phylogeny of the second largest set indicates a close relationship between stramenopiles and red algae, to the exclusion of alveolates, suggesting gene transfer from the red algal secondary symbiont to the ancestral stramenopile host nucleus during the origin of their chloroplast. Investigating phylogenomic data sets for conflicting signals has the potential to both improve phylogenetic accuracy and inform our understanding of genome evolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".