Dec 2, 2019

The Multispecies Coalescent Model Outperforms Concatenation across Diverse Phylogenomic Data Sets

BioRxiv : the Preprint Server for Biology
Xiaodong JiangLiang Liu

Abstract

A statistical framework of model comparison and model validation is essential to resolving the debates over concatenation and coalescent models in phylogenomic data analysis. A set of statistical tests are here applied and developed to evaluate and compare the adequacy of substitution, concatenation, and multispecies coalescent (MSC) models across 47 phylogenomic data sets collected across tree of life. Tests for substitution models and the concatenation assumption of topologically concordant gene trees suggest that a poor fit of substitution models (44% of loci rejecting the substitution model) and concatenation models (38% of loci rejecting the hypothesis of topologically congruent gene trees) is widespread. Logistic regression shows that the proportions of GC content and informative sites are both negatively correlated with the fit of substitution models across loci. Moreover, a substantial violation of the concatenation assumption of congruent gene trees is consistently observed across 6 major groups (birds, mammals, fish, insects, reptiles, and others, including other invertebrates). In contrast, among those loci adequately described by a given substitution model, the proportion of loci rejecting the MSC model is 11%, sign...Continue Reading

  • References
  • Citations

References

  • We're still populating references for this paper, please check back later.
  • References
  • Citations

Citations

  • This paper may not have been cited yet.

Mentioned in this Paper

Genes
Malignant Neoplasm of Stomach
Trees (plant)
Statistical Test
Evaluation
Site
Chemical Substitution
Zebrafish
Aves
Species

About this Paper

Related Feeds

BioRxiv & MedRxiv Preprints

BioRxiv and MedRxiv are the preprint servers for biology and health sciences respectively, operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Here are the latest preprint articles (which are not peer-reviewed) from BioRxiv and MedRxiv.