Phylogenomic comparative methods: accurate evolutionary inferences in the presence of gene tree discordance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phylogenetic comparative methods have long been a mainstay of evolutionary biology, allowing for inferences of the tempo and mode of trait evolution across species while accounting for their common ancestry. These analyses typically assume a single, bifurcating phylogenetic tree that describes the shared history among species. However, modern phylogenomic analyses have shown that genomes are often composed of a mosaic of different histories that can disagree both with the species tree and with each other—so-called discordant gene trees. These gene trees describe shared histories that are not captured by the species tree, and therefore that are unaccounted for in classic comparative approaches. The application of standard phylogenetic comparative methods to species histories containing discordance leads to incorrect inferences about the timing, direction, and rate of evolution. Here, we develop two approaches for incorporating gene tree histories into comparative methods: one involves constructing a fuller phylogenetic variance-covariance matrix that includes relationships not found in the species tree, and another that applies Felsenstein’s pruning algorithm over a set of gene trees to calculate trait histories and likelihoods. Both approaches are agnostic to the biological causes of gene tree discordance, which may include incomplete lineage sorting and introgression. Using simulation, we demonstrate that our new approaches generate much more accurate estimates of tree-wide rates of trait evolution than standard methods. We apply our methods to two clades of the wild tomato genus Solanum with varying rates of discordance, demonstrating the contribution of gene tree discordance to variation in a set of floral traits and the ability of our approaches to provide more accurate inferences. Our new approaches have the potential to be applied to a broad range of classic inference problems in phylogenetics, including ancestral state reconstruction and the inference of lineage-specific rate shifts.
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 | 0.017 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".