Probabilistic models of eukaryotic evolution: time for integration

Inferring the deep past from molecular data

There is an expectation that analyses of molecular sequences might be able to distinguish between alternative hypotheses for ancient relationships, but the phylogenetic methods used and types of data analyzed are of critical importance in any attempt to recover historical signal. Here, we discuss some common issues that can influence the topology of trees obtained when using overly simple models to analyze molecular data that often display complicated patterns of sequence heterogeneity. To illustrate our discussion, we have used three examples of inferred relationships which have changed radically as models and methods of analysis have improved. In two of these examples, the sister-group relationship between thermophilic Thermus and mesophilic Deinococcus, and the position of long-branch Microsporidia among eukaryotes, we show that recovering what is now generally considered to be the correct tree is critically dependent on the fit between model and data. In the third example, the position of eukaryotes in the tree of life, the hypothesis that is currently supported by the best available methods is fundamentally different from the classical view of relationships between major cellular domains. Since heterogeneity appears to be pervasive and varied among all molecular sequence data, and even the best available models can still struggle to deal with some problems, the issues we discuss are generally relevant to phylogenetic analyses. It remains essential to maintain a critical attitude to all trees as hypotheses of relationship that may change with more data and better methods.

Simultaneous Bayesian inference of phylogeny and molecular coevolution

Patterns of molecular coevolution can reveal structural and functional constraints within or among organic molecules. These patterns are better understood when considering the underlying evolutionary process, which enables us to disentangle the signal of the dependent evolution of sites (coevolution) from the effects of shared ancestry of genes. Conversely, disregarding the dependent evolution of sites when studying the history of genes negatively impacts the accuracy of the inferred phylogenetic trees. Although molecular coevolution and phylogenetic history are interdependent, analyses of the two processes are conducted separately, a choice dictated by computational convenience, but at the expense of accuracy. We present a Bayesian method and associated software to infer how many and which sites of an alignment evolve according to an independent or a pairwise dependent evolutionary process, and to simultaneously estimate the phylogenetic relationships among sequences. We validate our method on synthetic datasets and challenge our predictions of coevolution on the 16S rRNA molecule by comparing them with its known molecular structure. Finally, we assess the accuracy of phylogenetic trees inferred under the assumption of independence among sites using synthetic datasets, the 16S rRNA molecule and 10 additional alignments of protein-coding genes of eukaryotes. Our results demonstrate that inferring phylogenetic trees while accounting for dependent site evolution significantly impacts the estimates of the phylogeny and the evolutionary process.

The prevalence of terraced treescapes in analyses of phylogenetic data sets

BACKGROUND

The pattern of data availability in a phylogenetic data set may lead to the formation of terraces, collections of equally optimal trees. Terraces can arise in tree space if trees are scored with parsimony or with partitioned, edge-unlinked maximum likelihood. Theory predicts that terraces can be large, but their prevalence in contemporary data sets has never been surveyed. We selected 26 data sets and phylogenetic trees reported in recent literature and investigated the terraces to which the trees would belong, under a common set of inference assumptions. We examined terrace size as a function of the sampling properties of the data sets, including taxon coverage density (the proportion of taxon-by-gene positions with any data present) and a measure of gene sampling "sufficiency". We evaluated each data set in relation to the theoretical minimum gene sampling depth needed to reduce terrace size to a single tree, and explored the impact of the terraces found in replicate trees in bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

Terraces were identified in nearly all data sets with taxon coverage densities < 0.90. They were not found, however, in high-coverage-density (i.e., ≥ 0.94) transcriptomic and genomic data sets. The terraces could be very large, and size varied inversely with taxon coverage density and with gene sampling sufficiency. Few data sets achieved a theoretical minimum gene sampling depth needed to reduce terrace size to a single tree. Terraces found during bootstrap resampling reduced overall support.

CONCLUSIONS

If certain inference assumptions apply, trees estimated from empirical data sets often belong to large terraces of equally optimal trees. Terrace size correlates to data set sampling properties. Data sets seldom include enough genes to reduce terrace size to one tree. When bootstrap replicate trees lie on a terrace, statistical support for phylogenetic hypotheses may be reduced. Although some of the published analyses surveyed were conducted with edge-linked inference models (which do not induce terraces), unlinked models have been used and advocated. The present study describes the potential impact of that inference assumption on phylogenetic inference in the context of the kinds of multigene data sets now widely assembled for large-scale tree construction.

Rooting the tree of life: the phylogenetic jury is still out

This article aims to shed light on difficulties in rooting the tree of life (ToL) and to explore the (sociological) reasons underlying the limited interest in accurately addressing this fundamental issue. First, we briefly review the difficulties plaguing phylogenetic inference and the ways to improve the modelling of the substitution process, which is highly heterogeneous, both across sites and over time. We further observe that enriched taxon samplings, better gene samplings and clever data removal strategies have led to numerous revisions of the ToL, and that these improved shallow phylogenies nearly always relocate simple organisms higher in the ToL provided that long-branch attraction artefacts are kept at bay. Then, we note that, despite the flood of genomic data available since 2000, there has been a surprisingly low interest in inferring the root of the ToL. Furthermore, the rare studies dealing with this question were almost always based on methods dating from the 1990s that have been shown to be inaccurate for much more shallow issues! This leads us to argue that the current consensus about a bacterial root for the ToL can be traced back to the prejudice of Aristotle's Great Chain of Beings, in which simple organisms are ancestors of more complex life forms. Finally, we demonstrate that even the best models cannot yet handle the complexity of the evolutionary process encountered both at shallow depth, when the outgroup is too distant, and at the level of the inter-domain relationships. Altogether, we conclude that the commonly accepted bacterial root is still unproven and that the root of the ToL should be revisited using phylogenomic supermatrices to ensure that new evidence for eukaryogenesis, such as the recently described Lokiarcheota, is interpreted in a sound phylogenetic framework.

Histories of molecules: Reconciling the past

Molecular data and methods have become centrally important to evolutionary analysis, largely because they have enabled global phylogenetic reconstructions of the relationships between organisms in the tree of life. Often, however, molecular stories conflict dramatically with morphology-based histories of lineages. The evolutionary origin of animal groups provides one such case. In other instances, different molecular analyses have so far proved irreconcilable. The ancient and major divergence of eukaryotes from prokaryotic ancestors is an example of this sort of problem. Efforts to overcome these conflicts highlight the role models play in phylogenetic reconstruction. One crucial model is the molecular clock; another is that of 'simple-to-complex' modification. I will examine animal and eukaryote evolution against a backdrop of increasing methodological sophistication in molecular phylogeny, and conclude with some reflections on the nature of historical science in the molecular era of phylogeny.

Causes of evolutionary rate variation among protein sites

It has long been recognized that certain sites within a protein, such as sites in the protein core or catalytic residues in enzymes, are evolutionarily more conserved than other sites. However, our understanding of rate variation among sites remains surprisingly limited. Recent progress to address this includes the development of a wide array of reliable methods to estimate site-specific substitution rates from sequence alignments. In addition, several molecular traits have been identified that correlate with site-specific mutation rates, and novel mechanistic biophysical models have been proposed to explain the observed correlations. Nonetheless, current models explain, at best, approximately 60% of the observed variance, highlighting the limitations of current methods and models and the need for new research directions.

Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals

Understanding how complex traits, such as epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, or guts, originated depends on a well-supported hypothesis about the phylogenetic relationships among major animal lineages. Traditionally, sponges (Porifera) have been interpreted as the sister group to the remaining animals, a hypothesis consistent with the conventional view that the last common animal ancestor was relatively simple and more complex body plans arose later in evolution. However, this premise has recently been challenged by analyses of the genomes of comb jellies (Ctenophora), which, instead, found ctenophores as the sister group to the remaining animals (the "Ctenophora-sister" hypothesis). Because ctenophores are morphologically complex predators with true epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, and guts, this scenario implies these traits were either present in the last common ancestor of all animals and were lost secondarily in sponges and placozoans (Trichoplax) or, alternatively, evolved convergently in comb jellies. Here, we analyze representative datasets from recent studies supporting Ctenophora-sister, including genome-scale alignments of concatenated protein sequences, as well as a genomic gene content dataset. We found no support for Ctenophora-sister and conclude it is an artifact resulting from inadequate methodology, especially the use of simplistic evolutionary models and inappropriate choice of species to root the metazoan tree. Our results reinforce a traditional scenario for the evolution of complexity in animals, and indicate that inferences about the evolution of Metazoa based on the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis are not supported by the currently available data.

Changing ideas about eukaryotic origins

The origin of eukaryotic cells is one of the most fascinating challenges in biology, and has inspired decades of controversy and debate. Recent work has led to major upheavals in our understanding of eukaryotic origins and has catalysed new debates about the roles of endosymbiosis and gene flow across the tree of life. Improved methods of phylogenetic analysis support scenarios in which the host cell for the mitochondrial endosymbiont was a member of the Archaea, and new technologies for sampling the genomes of environmental prokaryotes have allowed investigators to home in on closer relatives of founding symbiotic partners. The inference and interpretation of phylogenetic trees from genomic data remains at the centre of many of these debates, and there is increasing recognition that trees built using inadequate methods can prove misleading, whether describing the relationship of eukaryotes to other cells or the root of the universal tree. New statistical approaches show promise for addressing these questions but they come with their own computational challenges. The papers in this theme issue discuss recent progress on the origin of eukaryotic cells and genomes, highlight some of the ongoing debates, and suggest possible routes to future progress.