Cargando…
Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry
BACKGROUND: The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive. A phylogenetic test has been proposed for quantifying its odds against independently originated sequences based on the comparison between one versus several trees. This test was successfully applied to a well-suppor...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27055810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y |
_version_ | 1782426005587099648 |
---|---|
author | de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo Posada, David |
author_facet | de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo Posada, David |
author_sort | de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive. A phylogenetic test has been proposed for quantifying its odds against independently originated sequences based on the comparison between one versus several trees. This test was successfully applied to a well-supported homologous sequence alignment, which was however criticized on the basis of simulations showing that alignments without any phylogenetic structure could mislead its conclusions. RESULTS: Here we present a simplified version of this same counterexample, which can be interpreted as a tree with arbitrarily long branches, and where the UCA test fails again. We also present another case whereby any sufficiently similar alignment will favour UCA irrespective of the true independent origins for the sequences. Finally, we present a class of frequentist tests that perform better than the purportedly formal UCA test. CONCLUSION: Despite claims to the contrary, we show that the counterexamples successfully detected a drawback of the original UCA test, of relying on sequence similarity. In light of our own simulations, we therefore conclude that the UCA test as originally proposed should not be trusted unless convergence has already been ruled out a priori. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by Professor Eugene Koonin, Dr. Yuri I. Wolf and Professor William Martin. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4823899 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48238992016-04-08 Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo Posada, David Biol Direct Research BACKGROUND: The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive. A phylogenetic test has been proposed for quantifying its odds against independently originated sequences based on the comparison between one versus several trees. This test was successfully applied to a well-supported homologous sequence alignment, which was however criticized on the basis of simulations showing that alignments without any phylogenetic structure could mislead its conclusions. RESULTS: Here we present a simplified version of this same counterexample, which can be interpreted as a tree with arbitrarily long branches, and where the UCA test fails again. We also present another case whereby any sufficiently similar alignment will favour UCA irrespective of the true independent origins for the sequences. Finally, we present a class of frequentist tests that perform better than the purportedly formal UCA test. CONCLUSION: Despite claims to the contrary, we show that the counterexamples successfully detected a drawback of the original UCA test, of relying on sequence similarity. In light of our own simulations, we therefore conclude that the UCA test as originally proposed should not be trusted unless convergence has already been ruled out a priori. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by Professor Eugene Koonin, Dr. Yuri I. Wolf and Professor William Martin. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4823899/ /pubmed/27055810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y Text en © Martins and Posada. 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo Posada, David Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title | Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title_full | Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title_fullStr | Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title_full_unstemmed | Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title_short | Infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
title_sort | infinitely long branches and an informal test of common ancestry |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823899/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27055810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13062-016-0120-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT deoliveiramartinsleonardo infinitelylongbranchesandaninformaltestofcommonancestry AT posadadavid infinitelylongbranchesandaninformaltestofcommonancestry |