首页> 外文期刊>Systematic Biology >Evaluating Fossil Calibrations for Dating Phylogenies in Light of Rates of Molecular Evolution: A Comparison of Three Approaches
【24h】

Evaluating Fossil Calibrations for Dating Phylogenies in Light of Rates of Molecular Evolution: A Comparison of Three Approaches

机译:根据分子进化速率评估发育史的化石校正:三种方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Evolutionary and biogeographic studies increasingly rely on calibrated molecular clocks to date key events. Although there has been significant recent progress in development of the techniques used for molecular dating, many issues remain. In particular, controversies abound over the appropriate use and placement of fossils for calibrating molecular clocks. Several methods have been proposed for evaluating candidate fossils; however, few studies have compared the results obtained by different approaches. Moreover, no previous study has incorporated the effects of nucleotide saturation from different data types in the evaluation of candidate fossils. In order to address these issues, we compared three approaches for evaluating fossil calibrations: the single-fossil cross-validation method of Near, Meylan, and Shaffer (2005. Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: an example using turtles. Am. Nat. 165:137–146), the empirical fossil coverage method of Marshall (2008. A simple method for bracketing absolute divergence times on molecular phylogenies using multiple fossil calibration points. Am. Nat. 171:726–742), and the Bayesian multicalibration method of Sanders and Lee (2007. Evaluating molecular clock calibrations using Bayesian analyses with soft and hard bounds. Biol. Lett. 3:275–279) and explicitly incorporate the effects of data type (nuclear vs. mitochondrial DNA) for identifying the most reliable or congruent fossil calibrations. We used advanced (Caenophidian) snakes as a case study; however, our results are applicable to any taxonomic group with multiple candidate fossils, provided appropriate taxon sampling and sufficient molecular sequence data are available. We found that data type strongly influenced which fossil calibrations were identified as outliers, regardless of which method was used. Despite the use of complex partitioned models of sequence evolution and multiple calibrations throughout the tree, saturation severely compressed basal branch lengths obtained from mitochondrial DNA compared with nuclear DNA. The effects of mitochondrial saturation were not ameliorated by analyzing a combined nuclear and mitochondrial data set. Although removing the third codon positions from the mitochondrial coding regions did not ameliorate saturation effects in the single-fossil cross-validations, it did in the Bayesian multicalibration analyses. Saturation significantly influenced the fossils that were selected as most reliable for all three methods evaluated. Our findings highlight the need to critically evaluate the fossils selected by data with different rates of nucleotide substitution and how data with different evolutionary rates affect the results of each method for evaluating fossils. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that the advantages of using multiple independent fossil calibrations significantly outweigh any disadvantages.
机译:进化论和生物地理学研究越来越依靠校准的分子钟来记录关键事件。尽管最近在用于分子测年的技术开发方面取得了重大进展,但仍有许多问题。尤其是,对于校准分子钟的化石的正确使用和放置,争议颇多。已经提出了几种评估候选化石的方法。但是,很少有研究比较通过不同方法获得的结果。此外,以前的研究还没有在评估候选化石中纳入来自不同数据类型的核苷酸饱和度的影响。为了解决这些问题,我们比较了三种评估化石校准的方法:Near,Meylan和Shaffer(2005年)的单化石交叉验证方法。在分子钟研究中评估化石校准点的一致性:以海龟为例。 Am。Nat。165:137–146),Marshall的经验性化石覆盖方法(2008.一种使用多个化石校准点将绝对发散时间括在分子系统发育上的简单方法。Am。Nat。171:726-742),以及Sanders和Lee的贝叶斯多重校准方法(2007年。使用具有软边界和硬边界的贝叶斯分析评估分子时钟校准。Biol。Lett。3:275–279),并明确结合了数据类型(核与线粒体DNA)的影响确定最可靠或最一致的化石校准。我们以先进的(食人鱼)蛇为例进行研究。但是,只要有适当的分类单元采样和足够的分子序列数据,我们的结果适用于具有多个候选化石的任何分类学类别。我们发现,无论使用哪种方法,数据类型都强烈影响哪些化石定标被识别为异常值。尽管使用了复杂的序列进化分区模型并在整个树中进行了多次校准,但与核DNA相比,从线粒体DNA获得的饱和基部分支长度严重压缩。分析组合的核和线粒体数据集并不能改善线粒体饱和的影响。尽管从线粒体编码区中去除第三个密码子位置在单化石交叉验证中并未改善饱和效应,但在贝叶斯多标定分析中确实如此。饱和度显着影响了被评估为所有三种评估方法中最可靠的化石。我们的发现强调需要严格评估由具有不同核苷酸取代率的数据选择的化石,以及具有不同进化速率的数据如何影响每种评估化石方法的结果。我们的经验评估表明,使用多个独立的化石标定的好处大大超过了任何缺点。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Systematic Biology》 |2012年第1期|p.22-43|共22页
  • 作者

    John C. Avise;

  • 作者单位

    ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia;

    E-mail:;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号