Dataset Information

Factors affecting the concordance between orthologous gene trees and species tree in bacteria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As originally defined, orthologous genes implied a reflection of the history of the species. In recent years, many studies have examined the concordance between orthologous gene trees and species trees in bacteria. These studies have produced contradictory results that may have been influenced by orthologous gene misidentification and artefactual phylogenetic reconstructions. Here, using a method that allows the detection and exclusion of false positives during identification of orthologous genes, we address the question of whether putative orthologous genes within bacteria really reflect the history of the species.

Results

We identified a set of 370 orthologous genes from the bacterial order Rhizobiales. Although manifesting strong vertical signal, almost every orthologous gene had a distinct phylogeny, and the most common topology among the orthologous gene trees did not correspond with the best estimate of the species tree. However, each orthologous gene tree shared an average of 70% of its bipartitions with the best estimate of the species tree. Stochastic error related to gene size affected the concordance between the best estimated of the species tree and the orthologous gene trees, although this effect was weak and distributed unevenly among the functional categories. The nodes showing the greatest discordance were those defined by the shortest internal branches in the best estimated of the species tree. Moreover, a clear bias was evident with respect to the function of the orthologous genes, and the degree of divergence among the orthologous genes appeared to be related to their functional classification.

Conclusion

Orthologous genes do not reflect the history of the species when taken as individual markers, but they do when taken as a whole. Stochastic error affected the concordance of orthologous genes with the species tree, albeit weakly. We conclude that two important biological causes of discordance among orthologous genes are incomplete lineage sorting and functional restriction.

SUBMITTER: Castillo-Ramirez S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2614993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The phylogenetic relationship of the now fully sequenced species Drosophila erecta and D. yakuba with respect to the D. melanogaster species complex has been a subject of controversy. All three possible groupings of the species have been reported in the past, though recent multi-gene studies suggest that D. erecta and D. yakuba are sister species. Using the whole genomes of each of these species as well as the four other fully sequenced species in the subgenus Sophophora, we set out to investigate the placement of D. erecta and D. yakuba in the D. melanogaster species group and to understand the cause of the past incongruence. Though we find that the phylogeny grouping D. erecta and D. yakuba together is the best supported, we also find widespread incongruence in nucleotide and amino acid substitutions, insertions and deletions, and gene trees. The time inferred to span the two key speciation events is short enough that under the coalescent model, the incongruence could be the result of incomplete lineage sorting. Consistent with the lineage-sorting hypothesis, substitutions supporting the same tree were spatially clustered. Support for the different trees was found to be linked to recombination such that adjacent genes support the same tree most often in regions of low recombination and substitutions supporting the same tree are most enriched roughly on the same scale as linkage disequilibrium, also consistent with lineage sorting. The incongruence was found to be statistically significant and robust to model and species choice. No systematic biases were found. We conclude that phylogenetic incongruence in the D. melanogaster species complex is the result, at least in part, of incomplete lineage sorting. Incomplete lineage sorting will likely cause phylogenetic incongruence in many comparative genomics datasets. Methods to infer the correct species tree, the history of every base in the genome, and comparative methods that control for and/or utilize this information will be valuable advancements for the field of comparative genomics.