Cargando…

Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogeneti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Villemereuil, Pierre de, Wells, Jessie A, Edwards, Robert D, Blomberg, Simon P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741602
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-102
_version_ 1782260571058470912
author Villemereuil, Pierre de
Wells, Jessie A
Edwards, Robert D
Blomberg, Simon P
author_facet Villemereuil, Pierre de
Wells, Jessie A
Edwards, Robert D
Blomberg, Simon P
author_sort Villemereuil, Pierre de
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogenetic comparative methods do not account for such uncertainties. Not accounting for these sources of uncertainty leads to false perceptions of precision (confidence intervals will be too narrow) and inflated significance in hypothesis testing (e.g. p-values will be too small). Although there is some application-specific software for fitting Bayesian models accounting for phylogenetic error, more general and flexible software is desirable. METHODS: We developed models to directly incorporate phylogenetic uncertainty into a range of analyses that biologists commonly perform, using a Bayesian framework and Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses. RESULTS: We demonstrate applications in linear regression, quantification of phylogenetic signal, and measurement error models. Phylogenetic uncertainty was incorporated by applying a prior distribution for the phylogeny, where this distribution consisted of the posterior tree sets from Bayesian phylogenetic tree estimation programs. The models were analysed using simulated data sets, and applied to a real data set on plant traits, from rainforest plant species in Northern Australia. Analyses were performed using the free and open source software OpenBUGS and JAGS. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating phylogenetic uncertainty through an empirical prior distribution of trees leads to more precise estimation of regression model parameters than using a single consensus tree and enables a more realistic estimation of confidence intervals. In addition, models incorporating measurement errors and/or individual variation, in one or both variables, are easily formulated in the Bayesian framework. We show that BUGS is a useful, flexible general purpose tool for phylogenetic comparative analyses, particularly for modelling in the face of phylogenetic uncertainty and accounting for measurement error or individual variation in explanatory variables. Code for all models is provided in the BUGS model description language.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3582467
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35824672013-03-08 Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty Villemereuil, Pierre de Wells, Jessie A Edwards, Robert D Blomberg, Simon P BMC Evol Biol Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogenetic comparative methods do not account for such uncertainties. Not accounting for these sources of uncertainty leads to false perceptions of precision (confidence intervals will be too narrow) and inflated significance in hypothesis testing (e.g. p-values will be too small). Although there is some application-specific software for fitting Bayesian models accounting for phylogenetic error, more general and flexible software is desirable. METHODS: We developed models to directly incorporate phylogenetic uncertainty into a range of analyses that biologists commonly perform, using a Bayesian framework and Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses. RESULTS: We demonstrate applications in linear regression, quantification of phylogenetic signal, and measurement error models. Phylogenetic uncertainty was incorporated by applying a prior distribution for the phylogeny, where this distribution consisted of the posterior tree sets from Bayesian phylogenetic tree estimation programs. The models were analysed using simulated data sets, and applied to a real data set on plant traits, from rainforest plant species in Northern Australia. Analyses were performed using the free and open source software OpenBUGS and JAGS. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating phylogenetic uncertainty through an empirical prior distribution of trees leads to more precise estimation of regression model parameters than using a single consensus tree and enables a more realistic estimation of confidence intervals. In addition, models incorporating measurement errors and/or individual variation, in one or both variables, are easily formulated in the Bayesian framework. We show that BUGS is a useful, flexible general purpose tool for phylogenetic comparative analyses, particularly for modelling in the face of phylogenetic uncertainty and accounting for measurement error or individual variation in explanatory variables. Code for all models is provided in the BUGS model description language. BioMed Central 2012-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3582467/ /pubmed/22741602 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-102 Text en Copyright ©2012 de Villemereuil 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 Methodology Article
Villemereuil, Pierre de
Wells, Jessie A
Edwards, Robert D
Blomberg, Simon P
Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title_full Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title_fullStr Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title_full_unstemmed Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title_short Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
title_sort bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741602
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-102
work_keys_str_mv AT villemereuilpierrede bayesianmodelsforcomparativeanalysisintegratingphylogeneticuncertainty
AT wellsjessiea bayesianmodelsforcomparativeanalysisintegratingphylogeneticuncertainty
AT edwardsrobertd bayesianmodelsforcomparativeanalysisintegratingphylogeneticuncertainty
AT blombergsimonp bayesianmodelsforcomparativeanalysisintegratingphylogeneticuncertainty