Cargando…

Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?

BACKGROUND: Array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) data have been used to infer phylogenetic relationships. However, the reliability of array CGH analysis to determine evolutionary relationships has not been well established. In most CGH work, all species and strains are compared to a s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gilbert, Luz B, Kasuga, Takao, Glass, N Louise, Taylor, John W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-487
_version_ 1782215452737404928
author Gilbert, Luz B
Kasuga, Takao
Glass, N Louise
Taylor, John W
author_facet Gilbert, Luz B
Kasuga, Takao
Glass, N Louise
Taylor, John W
author_sort Gilbert, Luz B
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) data have been used to infer phylogenetic relationships. However, the reliability of array CGH analysis to determine evolutionary relationships has not been well established. In most CGH work, all species and strains are compared to a single reference species, whose genome was used to design the array. In the accompanying work, we critically evaluated CGH-based phylogeny using simulated competitive hybridization data. This work showed that a limited number of conditions, principally the tree topology and placement of the reference taxon in the tree, had a strong effect on the ability to recover the correct tree topology. Here, we add to our simulation study by testing the use of CGH as a phylogenetic tool with experimental CGH data from competitive hybridizations between N. crassa and other Neurospora species. In the discussion, we add to our empirical study of Neurospora by reanalyzing of data from a previous CGH phylogenetic analysis of the yeast sensu stricto complex. RESULTS: Array ratio data for Neurospora and related species were normalized with loess, robust spline, and linear ratio based methods, and then used to construct Neighbor-Joining and parsimony trees. These trees were compared to published phylogenetic analyses for Neurospora based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA). For the Neurospora dataset, the best combination of methods resulted in recovery of the MLSA tree topology less than half the time. Our reanalysis of a yeast dataset found that trees identical to established phylogeny were recovered only by pruning taxa - including the reference taxon - from the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that CGH data can be problematic for phylogenetic analysis. Success fluctuates based on the methods utilized to construct the tree and the taxa included. Selective pruning of the taxa improves the results - an impractical approach for normal phylogenetic analysis. From the more successful methods we make suggestions on the normalization and post-normalization methods that work best in estimating genetic distance between taxa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3206521
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32065212011-11-03 Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees? Gilbert, Luz B Kasuga, Takao Glass, N Louise Taylor, John W BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) data have been used to infer phylogenetic relationships. However, the reliability of array CGH analysis to determine evolutionary relationships has not been well established. In most CGH work, all species and strains are compared to a single reference species, whose genome was used to design the array. In the accompanying work, we critically evaluated CGH-based phylogeny using simulated competitive hybridization data. This work showed that a limited number of conditions, principally the tree topology and placement of the reference taxon in the tree, had a strong effect on the ability to recover the correct tree topology. Here, we add to our simulation study by testing the use of CGH as a phylogenetic tool with experimental CGH data from competitive hybridizations between N. crassa and other Neurospora species. In the discussion, we add to our empirical study of Neurospora by reanalyzing of data from a previous CGH phylogenetic analysis of the yeast sensu stricto complex. RESULTS: Array ratio data for Neurospora and related species were normalized with loess, robust spline, and linear ratio based methods, and then used to construct Neighbor-Joining and parsimony trees. These trees were compared to published phylogenetic analyses for Neurospora based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA). For the Neurospora dataset, the best combination of methods resulted in recovery of the MLSA tree topology less than half the time. Our reanalysis of a yeast dataset found that trees identical to established phylogeny were recovered only by pruning taxa - including the reference taxon - from the analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that CGH data can be problematic for phylogenetic analysis. Success fluctuates based on the methods utilized to construct the tree and the taxa included. Selective pruning of the taxa improves the results - an impractical approach for normal phylogenetic analysis. From the more successful methods we make suggestions on the normalization and post-normalization methods that work best in estimating genetic distance between taxa. BioMed Central 2011-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3206521/ /pubmed/21978207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-487 Text en Copyright ©2011 Gilbert et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gilbert, Luz B
Kasuga, Takao
Glass, N Louise
Taylor, John W
Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title_full Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title_fullStr Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title_full_unstemmed Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title_short Array CGH Phylogeny: How accurate are Comparative Genomic Hybridization-based trees?
title_sort array cgh phylogeny: how accurate are comparative genomic hybridization-based trees?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-487
work_keys_str_mv AT gilbertluzb arraycghphylogenyhowaccuratearecomparativegenomichybridizationbasedtrees
AT kasugatakao arraycghphylogenyhowaccuratearecomparativegenomichybridizationbasedtrees
AT glassnlouise arraycghphylogenyhowaccuratearecomparativegenomichybridizationbasedtrees
AT taylorjohnw arraycghphylogenyhowaccuratearecomparativegenomichybridizationbasedtrees