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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo, Posada, David
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