Refuting phylogenetic relationshipsReport as inadecuate




Refuting phylogenetic relationships - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Biology Direct

, 1:26

First Online: 06 September 2006Received: 25 August 2006Accepted: 06 September 2006

Abstract

BackgroundPhylogenetic methods are philosophically grounded, and so can be philosophically biased in ways that limit explanatory power. This constitutes an important methodologic dimension not often taken into account. Here we address this dimension in the context of concatenation approaches to phylogeny.

ResultsWe discuss some of the limits of a methodology restricted to verificationism, the philosophy on which gene concatenation practices generally rely. As an alternative, we describe a software which identifies and focuses on impossible or refuted relationships, through a simple analysis of bootstrap bipartitions, followed by multivariate statistical analyses. We show how refuting phylogenetic relationships could in principle facilitate systematics. We also apply our method to the study of two complex phylogenies: the phylogeny of the archaea and the phylogeny of the core of genes shared by all life forms. While many groups are rejected, our results left open a possible proximity of N. equitans and the Methanopyrales, of the Archaea and the Cyanobacteria, and as well the possible grouping of the Methanobacteriales-Methanoccocales and Thermosplasmatales, of the Spirochaetes and the Actinobacteria and of the Proteobacteria and firmicutes.

ConclusionIt is sometimes easier and preferable to decide which species do not group together than which ones do. When possible topologies are limited, identifying local relationships that are rejected may be a useful alternative to classical concatenation approaches aiming to find a globally resolved tree on the basis of weak phylogenetic markers.

ReviewersThis article was reviewed by Mark Ragan, Eugene V Koonin and J Peter Gogarten.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-1745-6150-1-26 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Download fulltext PDF



Author: James Bucknam - Yan Boucher - Eric Bapteste

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-1-26







Related documents