Cargando…

Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models

Bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures (BAMM) is a statistical framework that uses reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo to infer complex macroevolutionary dynamics of diversification and phenotypic evolution on phylogenetic trees. A recent article by Moore et al. (MEA) reported a number...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rabosky, Daniel L., Mitchell, Jonathan S., Chang, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28334223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx037
_version_ 1783296408149819392
author Rabosky, Daniel L.
Mitchell, Jonathan S.
Chang, Jonathan
author_facet Rabosky, Daniel L.
Mitchell, Jonathan S.
Chang, Jonathan
author_sort Rabosky, Daniel L.
collection PubMed
description Bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures (BAMM) is a statistical framework that uses reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo to infer complex macroevolutionary dynamics of diversification and phenotypic evolution on phylogenetic trees. A recent article by Moore et al. (MEA) reported a number of theoretical and practical concerns with BAMM. Major claims from MEA are that (i) BAMM’s likelihood function is incorrect, because it does not account for unobserved rate shifts; (ii) the posterior distribution on the number of rate shifts is overly sensitive to the prior; and (iii) diversification rate estimates from BAMM are unreliable. Here, we show that these and other conclusions from MEA are generally incorrect or unjustified. We first demonstrate that MEA’s numerical assessment of the BAMM likelihood is compromised by their use of an invalid likelihood function. We then show that “unobserved rate shifts” appear to be irrelevant for biologically plausible parameterizations of the diversification process. We find that the purportedly extreme prior sensitivity reported by MEA cannot be replicated with standard usage of BAMM v2.5, or with any other version when conventional Bayesian model selection is performed. Finally, we demonstrate that BAMM performs very well at estimating diversification rate variation across the [Formula: see text] 20% of simulated trees in MEA’s data set for which it is theoretically possible to infer rate shifts with confidence. Due to ascertainment bias, the remaining 80% of their purportedly variable-rate phylogenies are statistically indistinguishable from those produced by a constant-rate birth–death process and were thus poorly suited for the summary statistics used in their performance assessment. We demonstrate that inferences about diversification rates have been accurate and consistent across all major previous releases of the BAMM software. We recognize an acute need to address the theoretical foundations of rate-shift models for phylogenetic trees, and we expect BAMM and other modeling frameworks to improve in response to mathematical and computational innovations. However, we remain optimistic that that the imperfect tools currently available to comparative biologists have provided and will continue to provide important insights into the diversification of life on Earth.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5790138
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57901382018-02-05 Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models Rabosky, Daniel L. Mitchell, Jonathan S. Chang, Jonathan Syst Biol Regular Articles Bayesian analysis of macroevolutionary mixtures (BAMM) is a statistical framework that uses reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo to infer complex macroevolutionary dynamics of diversification and phenotypic evolution on phylogenetic trees. A recent article by Moore et al. (MEA) reported a number of theoretical and practical concerns with BAMM. Major claims from MEA are that (i) BAMM’s likelihood function is incorrect, because it does not account for unobserved rate shifts; (ii) the posterior distribution on the number of rate shifts is overly sensitive to the prior; and (iii) diversification rate estimates from BAMM are unreliable. Here, we show that these and other conclusions from MEA are generally incorrect or unjustified. We first demonstrate that MEA’s numerical assessment of the BAMM likelihood is compromised by their use of an invalid likelihood function. We then show that “unobserved rate shifts” appear to be irrelevant for biologically plausible parameterizations of the diversification process. We find that the purportedly extreme prior sensitivity reported by MEA cannot be replicated with standard usage of BAMM v2.5, or with any other version when conventional Bayesian model selection is performed. Finally, we demonstrate that BAMM performs very well at estimating diversification rate variation across the [Formula: see text] 20% of simulated trees in MEA’s data set for which it is theoretically possible to infer rate shifts with confidence. Due to ascertainment bias, the remaining 80% of their purportedly variable-rate phylogenies are statistically indistinguishable from those produced by a constant-rate birth–death process and were thus poorly suited for the summary statistics used in their performance assessment. We demonstrate that inferences about diversification rates have been accurate and consistent across all major previous releases of the BAMM software. We recognize an acute need to address the theoretical foundations of rate-shift models for phylogenetic trees, and we expect BAMM and other modeling frameworks to improve in response to mathematical and computational innovations. However, we remain optimistic that that the imperfect tools currently available to comparative biologists have provided and will continue to provide important insights into the diversification of life on Earth. Oxford University Press 2017-07 2017-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5790138/ /pubmed/28334223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx037 Text en © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Regular Articles
Rabosky, Daniel L.
Mitchell, Jonathan S.
Chang, Jonathan
Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title_full Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title_fullStr Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title_full_unstemmed Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title_short Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models
title_sort is bamm flawed? theoretical and practical concerns in the analysis of multi-rate diversification models
topic Regular Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28334223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syx037
work_keys_str_mv AT raboskydaniell isbammflawedtheoreticalandpracticalconcernsintheanalysisofmultiratediversificationmodels
AT mitchelljonathans isbammflawedtheoreticalandpracticalconcernsintheanalysisofmultiratediversificationmodels
AT changjonathan isbammflawedtheoreticalandpracticalconcernsintheanalysisofmultiratediversificationmodels