Phylogenetics

In biology, phylogenetics /ˌfaɪloʊdʒəˈnɛtɪks, -lə-/[1][2] (Greek: φυλή, φῦλον – phylé, phylon = tribe, clan, race + γενετικός – genetikós = origin, source, birth)[3] is a part of systematics that addresses the inference of the evolutionary history and relationships among or within groups of organisms (e.g. species, or more inclusive taxa). These relationships are hypothesized by phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology, often under a specified model of evolution of these traits. The result of such an analysis is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree)—a diagrammatic hypothesis of relationships that reflects the evolutionary history of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living taxa or fossils, and represent the 'end', or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. A phylogenetic diagram can be rooted or unrooted. A rooted tree diagram indicates the hypothetical common ancestor, or ancestral lineage, of the tree. An unrooted tree diagram (a network) makes no assumption about the ancestral line, and does not show the origin or "root" of the taxa in question or the direction of inferred evolutionary transformations.[5] In addition to their proper use for inferring phylogenetic patterns among taxa, phylogenetic analyses are often employed to represent relationships among gene copies or individual organisms. Such uses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.

Part of a series on
Evolutionary biology
Fields and applications

Taxonomy is the identification, naming and classification of organisms. Classifications are now usually based on phylogenetic data, and many systematists contend that only monophyletic taxa should be recognized as named groups. The degree to which classification depends on inferred evolutionary history differs depending on the school of taxonomy: phenetics ignores phylogenetic speculation altogether, trying to represent the similarity between organisms instead; cladistics (phylogenetic systematics) tries to reflect phylogeny in its classifications by only recognizing groups based on shared, derived characters (synapomorphies); evolutionary taxonomy tries to take into account both the branching pattern and "degree of difference" to find a compromise between them.

Inference of a phylogenetic tree
Main article: Computational phylogenetics

Usual methods of phylogenetic inference involve computational approaches implementing the optimality criteria and methods of parsimony, maximum likelihood (ML), and MCMC-based Bayesian inference. All these depend upon an implicit or explicit mathematical model describing the evolution of characters observed.

Phenetics, popular in the mid-20th century but now largely obsolete, used distance matrix-based methods to construct trees based on overall similarity in morphology or similar observable traits (i.e. in the phenotype or the overall similarity of DNA, not the DNA sequence), which was often assumed to approximate phylogenetic relationships.

Prior to 1950, phylogenetic inferences were generally presented as narrative scenarios. Such methods are often ambiguous and lack explicit criteria for evaluating alternative hypotheses.[6][7][8]

History

The term "phylogeny" derives from the German Phylogenie, introduced by Haeckel in 1866,[9] and the Darwinian approach to classification became known as the "phyletic" approach.[10]

Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory

During the late 19th century, Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory, or "biogenetic fundamental law", was widely accepted. It was often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", i.e. the development of a single organism during its lifetime, from germ to adult, successively mirrors the adult stages of successive ancestors of the species to which it belongs. But this theory has long been rejected.[11][12] Instead, ontogeny evolves – the phylogenetic history of a species cannot be read directly from its ontogeny, as Haeckel thought would be possible, but characters from ontogeny can be (and have been) used as data for phylogenetic analyses; the more closely related two species are, the more apomorphies their embryos share.

Timeline of key points
Branching tree diagram from Heinrich Georg Bronn's work (1858)
Phylogenetic tree suggested by Haeckel (1866)
  • 14th century, lex parsimoniae (parsimony principle), William of Ockam, English philosopher, theologian, and Franciscan friar, but the idea actually goes back to Aristotle, precursor concept
  • 1763, Bayesian probability, Rev. Thomas Bayes,[13] precursor concept
  • 18th century, Pierre Simon (Marquis de Laplace), perhaps first to use ML (maximum likelihood), precursor concept
  • 1809, evolutionary theory, Philosophie Zoologique, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, precursor concept, foreshadowed in the 17th century and 18th century by Voltaire, Descartes, and Leibniz, with Leibniz even proposing evolutionary changes to account for observed gaps suggesting that many species had become extinct, others transformed, and different species that share common traits may have at one time been a single race,[14] also foreshadowed by some early Greek philosophers such as Anaximander in the 6th century BC and the atomists of the 5th century BC, who proposed rudimentary theories of evolution[15]
  • 1837, Darwin's notebooks show an evolutionary tree[16]
  • 1843, distinction between homology and analogy (the latter now referred to as homoplasy), Richard Owen, precursor concept
  • 1858, Paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn (1800–1862) published a hypothetical tree to illustrating the paleontological "arrival" of new, similar species following the extinction of an older species. Bronn did not propose a mechanism responsible for such phenomena, precursor concept.[17]
  • 1858, elaboration of evolutionary theory, Darwin and Wallace,[18] also in Origin of Species by Darwin the following year, precursor concept
  • 1866, Ernst Haeckel, first publishes his phylogeny-based evolutionary tree, precursor concept
  • 1893, Dollo's Law of Character State Irreversibility,[19] precursor concept
  • 1912, ML recommended, analyzed, and popularized by Ronald Fisher, precursor concept
  • 1921, Tillyard uses term "phylogenetic" and distinguishes between archaic and specialized characters in his classification system[20]
  • 1940, term "clade" coined by Lucien Cuénot
  • 1949, Jackknife resampling, Maurice Quenouille (foreshadowed in '46 by Mahalanobis and extended in '58 by Tukey), precursor concept
  • 1950, Willi Hennig's classic formalization[21]
  • 1952, William Wagner's groundplan divergence method[22]
  • 1953, "cladogenesis" coined[23]
  • 1960, "cladistic" coined by Cain and Harrison[24]
  • 1963, first attempt to use ML (maximum likelihood) for phylogenetics, Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza[25]
  • 1965
    • Camin-Sokal parsimony, first parsimony (optimization) criterion and first computer program/algorithm for cladistic analysis both by Camin and Sokal[26]
    • character compatibility method, also called clique analysis, introduced independently by Camin and Sokal (loc. cit.) and E. O. Wilson[27]
  • 1966
    • English translation of Hennig[28]
    • "cladistics" and "cladogram" coined (Webster's, loc. cit.)
  • 1969
    • dynamic and successive weighting, James Farris[29]
    • Wagner parsimony, Kluge and Farris[30]
    • CI (consistency index), Kluge and Farris[30]
    • introduction of pairwise compatibility for clique analysis, Le Quesne[31]
  • 1970, Wagner parsimony generalized by Farris[32]
  • 1971
    • first successful application of ML to phylogenetics (for protein sequences), Neyman[33]
    • Fitch parsimony, Fitch[34]
    • NNI (nearest neighbour interchange), first branch-swapping search strategy, developed independently by Robinson[35] and Moore et al.
    • ME (minimum evolution), Kidd and Sgaramella-Zonta[36] (it is unclear if this is the pairwise distance method or related to ML as Edwards and Cavalli-Sforza call ML "minimum evolution")
  • 1972, Adams consensus, Adams[37]
  • 1976, prefix system for ranks, Farris[38]
  • 1977, Dollo parsimony, Farris[39]
  • 1979
    • Nelson consensus, Nelson[40]
    • MAST (maximum agreement subtree)((GAS)greatest agreement subtree), a consensus method, Gordon [41]
    • bootstrap, Bradley Efron, precursor concept[42]
  • 1980, PHYLIP, first software package for phylogenetic analysis, Felsenstein
  • 1981
    • majority consensus, Margush and MacMorris[43]
    • strict consensus, Sokal and Rohlf[44]
    • first computationally efficient ML algorithm, Felsenstein[45]
  • 1982
    • PHYSIS, Mikevich and Farris
    • branch and bound, Hendy and Penny[46]
  • 1985
    • first cladistic analysis of eukaryotes based on combined phenotypic and genotypic evidence Diana Lipscomb[47]
    • first issue of Cladistics
    • first phylogenetic application of bootstrap, Felsenstein[48]
    • first phylogenetic application of jackknife, Scott Lanyon[49]
  • 1986, MacClade, Maddison and Maddison
  • 1987, neighbor-joining method Saitou and Nei[50]
  • 1988, Hennig86 (version 1.5), Farris
    • Bremer support (decay index), Bremer[51]
  • 1989
    • RI (retention index), RCI (rescaled consistency index), Farris[52]
    • HER (homoplasy excess ratio), Archie[53]
  • 1990
    • combinable components (semi-strict) consensus, Bremer[54]
    • SPR (subtree pruning and regrafting), TBR (tree bisection and reconnection), Swofford and Olsen[55]
  • 1991
    • DDI (data decisiveness index), Goloboff[56][57]
    • first cladistic analysis of eukaryotes based only on phenotypic evidence, Lipscomb
  • 1993, implied weighting Goloboff[58]
  • 1994, reduced consensus: RCC (reduced cladistic consensus) for rooted trees, Wilkinson[59]
  • 1995, reduced consensus RPC (reduced partition consensus) for unrooted trees, Wilkinson[60]
  • 1996, first working methods for BI (Bayesian Inference)independently developed by Li,[61] Mau,[62] and Rannala and Yang[63] and all using MCMC (Markov chain-Monte Carlo)
  • 1998, TNT (Tree Analysis Using New Technology), Goloboff, Farris, and Nixon
  • 1999, Winclada, Nixon
  • 2003, symmetrical resampling, Goloboff[64]
  • 2004,2005, symmilarity metric (using an approximation to Kolmogorov complexity) or NCD (normalized compression distance), Li et.al.[65], Cilibrasi and Vitanyi[66].
gollark: Which building?
gollark: Also what's owned by the hydrogen/nitrogenous one?
gollark: Why what?
gollark: What?
gollark: Why what?

See also

References
  1. "phylogenetic". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House.
  2. "phylogenetic". Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
  3. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; Jones, Henry Stuart (1968). A Greek-English lexicon (9 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 1961.
  4. "phylogeny". Biology online. Retrieved 15 February 2013.
  5. "Phylogenetic Trees". www.cs.tau.ac.il. Retrieved 27 April 2019.
  6. Richard C. Brusca & Gary J. Brusca (2003). Invertebrates (2nd ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-097-5.
  7. Bock, W. J. (2004). Explanations in systematics. Pp. 49–56. In Williams, D. M. and Forey, P. L. (eds) Milestones in Systematics. London: Systematics Association Special Volume Series 67. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
  8. Auyang, Sunny Y. (1998). Narratives and Theories in Natural History. In: Foundations of complex-system theories: in economics, evolutionary biology, and statistical physics. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Harper, Douglas (2010). "Phylogeny". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
  10. Stuessy 2009.
  11. Blechschmidt, Erich (1977) The Beginnings of Human Life. Springer-Verlag Inc., p. 32: "The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form, making it valid in a certain percentage. It is totally wrong."
  12. Ehrlich, Paul; Richard Holm; Dennis Parnell (1963) The Process of Evolution. New York: McGraw–Hill, p. 66: "Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology. The resemblance of early vertebrate embryos is readily explained without resort to mysterious forces compelling each individual to reclimb its phylogenetic tree."
  13. Bayes, Mr; Price, Mr (1763). "An Essay towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the Late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. Communicated by Mr. Price, in a Letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. S". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 53: 370–418. doi:10.1098/rstl.1763.0053.
  14. Strickberger, Monroe. 1996. Evolution, 2nd. ed. Jones & Bartlett.
  15. The Theory of Evolution, Teaching Company course, Lecture 1
  16. Darwin's Tree of Life Archived 13 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  17. Archibald, J. David (2008). "Edward Hitchcock's Pre-Darwinian (1840) 'Tree of Life'". Journal of the History of Biology. 42 (3): 561–92. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.688.7842. doi:10.1007/s10739-008-9163-y. PMID 20027787.
  18. Darwin, Charles; Wallace, Alfred (1858). "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection". Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology. 3 (9): 45–62. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x.
  19. Dollo, Louis. 1893. Les lois de l'évolution. Bull. Soc. Belge Géol. Paléont. Hydrol. 7: 164–66.
  20. Tillyard, R. J (2012). "A New Classification of the Order Perlaria". The Canadian Entomologist. 53 (2): 35–43. doi:10.4039/Ent5335-2.
  21. Hennig, Willi (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik [Basic features of a theory of phylogenetic systematics] (in German). Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag. OCLC 12126814.
  22. Wagner, Warren Herbert (1952). "The fern genus Diellia: structure, affinities, and taxonomy". University of California Publications in Botany. 26 (1–6): 1–212. OCLC 4228844.
  23. Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary
  24. Cain, A. J; Harrison, G. A (2009). "Phyletic Weighting". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 135 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1960.tb05828.x.
  25. "The reconstruction of evolution" in "Abstracts of Papers". Annals of Human Genetics. 27 (1): 103–5. 1963. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.1963.tb00786.x.
  26. Camin, Joseph H; Sokal, Robert R (1965). "A Method for Deducing Branching Sequences in Phylogeny". Evolution. 19 (3): 311–26. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1965.tb01722.x.
  27. Wilson, Edward O (1965). "A Consistency Test for Phylogenies Based on Contemporaneous Species". Systematic Zoology. 14 (3): 214–20. doi:10.2307/2411550. JSTOR 2411550.
  28. Hennig. W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Illinois University Press, Urbana.
  29. Farris, James S (1969). "A Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting". Systematic Zoology. 18 (4): 374–85. doi:10.2307/2412182. JSTOR 2412182.
  30. Kluge, A. G; Farris, J. S (1969). "Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans". Systematic Biology. 18 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1093/sysbio/18.1.1.
  31. Quesne, Walter J. Le (1969). "A Method of Selection of Characters in Numerical Taxonomy". Systematic Zoology. 18 (2): 201–205. doi:10.2307/2412604. JSTOR 2412604.
  32. Farris, J. S (1970). "Methods for Computing Wagner Trees". Systematic Biology. 19: 83–92. doi:10.1093/sysbio/19.1.83.
  33. Neyman, J. (1971). Molecular studies: A source of novel statistical problems. In: Gupta S. S., Yackel J. (eds), Statistical Decision Theory and Related Topics, pp. 1–27. Academic Press, New York.
  34. Fitch, W. M (1971). "Toward Defining the Course of Evolution: Minimum Change for a Specific Tree Topology". Systematic Biology. 20 (4): 406–16. doi:10.1093/sysbio/20.4.406. JSTOR 2412116.
  35. Robinson, D.F (1971). "Comparison of labeled trees with valency three". Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B. 11 (2): 105–19. doi:10.1016/0095-8956(71)90020-7.
  36. Kidd, K. K; Sgaramella-Zonta, L. A (1971). "Phylogenetic analysis: Concepts and methods". American Journal of Human Genetics. 23 (3): 235–52. PMC 1706731. PMID 5089842.
  37. Adams, E. N (1972). "Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees". Systematic Biology. 21 (4): 390–397. doi:10.1093/sysbio/21.4.390.
  38. Farris, James S (1976). "Phylogenetic Classification of Fossils with Recent Species". Systematic Zoology. 25 (3): 271–282. doi:10.2307/2412495. JSTOR 2412495.
  39. Farris, J. S (1977). "Phylogenetic Analysis Under Dollo's Law". Systematic Biology. 26: 77–88. doi:10.1093/sysbio/26.1.77.
  40. Nelson, G (1979). "Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: Principles and Definitions, with a Historical Note on Adanson's Familles Des Plantes (1763-1764)". Systematic Biology. 28: 1–21. doi:10.1093/sysbio/28.1.1.
  41. Gordon, A. D (1979). "A Measure of the Agreement between Rankings". Biometrika. 66 (1): 7–15. doi:10.1093/biomet/66.1.7. JSTOR 2335236.
  42. Efron B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7: 1–26.
  43. Margush, T; McMorris, F (1981). "Consensus-trees". Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 43 (2): 239. doi:10.1016/S0092-8240(81)90019-7.
  44. Sokal, Robert R; Rohlf, F. James (1981). "Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-Examined". Systematic Zoology. 30 (3): 309. doi:10.2307/2413252. JSTOR 2413252.
  45. Felsenstein, Joseph (1981). "Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach". Journal of Molecular Evolution. 17 (6): 368–76. doi:10.1007/BF01734359. PMID 7288891.
  46. Hendy, M.D; Penny, David (1982). "Branch and bound algorithms to determine minimal evolutionary trees". Mathematical Biosciences. 59 (2): 277. doi:10.1016/0025-5564(82)90027-X.
  47. Lipscomb, Diana (1985). "The Eukaryotic Kingdoms". Cladistics. 1: 127–40. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1985.tb00417.x.
  48. Felsenstein, J (1985). "Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap". Evolution. 39: 783–791. doi:10.2307/2408678. PMID 28561359.
  49. Lanyon, S. M (1985). "Detecting Internal Inconsistencies in Distance Data". Systematic Biology. 34 (4): 397–403. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1000.3956. doi:10.1093/sysbio/34.4.397.
  50. Saitou, N.; Nei, M. (1987). "The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 4 (4): 406–25. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040454. PMID 3447015.
  51. Bremer, Kåre (1988). "The Limits of Amino Acid Sequence Data in Angiosperm Phylogenetic Reconstruction". Evolution. 42 (4): 795–803. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1988.tb02497.x. PMID 28563878.
  52. Farris, James S (1989). "The Retention Index and the Rescaled Consistency Index". Cladistics. 5 (4): 417–419. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1989.tb00573.x.
  53. Archie, James W (1989). "Homoplasy Excess Ratios: New Indices for Measuring Levels of Homoplasy in Phylogenetic Systematics and a Critique of the Consistency Index". Systematic Zoology. 38 (3): 253–269. doi:10.2307/2992286. JSTOR 2992286.
  54. Bremer, Kåre (1990). "Combinable Component Consensus". Cladistics. 6 (4): 369–372. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00551.x.
  55. D. L. Swofford and G. J. Olsen. 1990. Phylogeny reconstruction. In D. M. Hillis and G. Moritz (eds.), Molecular Systematics, pages 411–501. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
  56. Goloboff, Pablo A (1991). "Homoplasy and the Choice Among Cladograms". Cladistics. 7 (3): 215–232. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00035.x.
  57. Goloboff, Pablo A (1991). "Random Data, Homoplasy and Information". Cladistics. 7 (4): 395–406. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00046.x.
  58. Goloboff, Pablo A (1993). "Estimating Character Weights During Tree Search". Cladistics. 9: 83–91. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1993.tb00209.x.
  59. Wilkinson, M (1994). "Common Cladistic Information and its Consensus Representation: Reduced Adams and Reduced Cladistic Consensus Trees and Profiles". Systematic Biology. 43 (3): 343–368. doi:10.1093/sysbio/43.3.343.
  60. Wilkinson, Mark (1995). "More on Reduced Consensus Methods". Systematic Biology. 44 (3): 435–439. doi:10.2307/2413604. JSTOR 2413604.
  61. Li, Shuying; Pearl, Dennis K; Doss, Hani (2000). "Phylogenetic Tree Construction Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo". Journal of the American Statistical Association. 95 (450): 493. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.40.4461. doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10474227. JSTOR 2669394.
  62. Mau, Bob; Newton, Michael A; Larget, Bret (1999). "Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference via Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods". Biometrics. 55 (1): 1–12. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.139.498. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00001.x. JSTOR 2533889. PMID 11318142.
  63. Rannala, Bruce; Yang, Ziheng (1996). "Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: A new method of phylogenetic inference". Journal of Molecular Evolution. 43 (3): 304–11. doi:10.1007/BF02338839. PMID 8703097.
  64. Goloboff, P (2003). "Improvements to resampling measures of group support". Cladistics. 19 (4): 324–32. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.tb00376.x.
  65. M. Li, X. Chen, X. Li, B. Ma, P.M.B. Vitanyi, The similarity metric, IEEE Trans. Inform. Th., 50:12(2004), 3250--3264
  66. R. Cilibrasi, P.M.B. Vitanyi, Clustering by compression, IEEE Trans. Information Theory, 51:4(2005), 1523- 1545

Bibliography
  • Schuh, Randall T.; Brower, Andrew V.Z. (2009). Biological Systematics: principles and applications (2nd ed.). Ithaca: Comstock Pub. Associates/Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-4799-0. OCLC 312728177.
  • Forster, Peter; Renfrew, Colin, eds. (2006). Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. McDonald Institute Press, University of Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-902937-33-5. OCLC 69733654.
  • Baum, David A.; Smith, Stacey D. (2013). Tree Thinking: an introduction to phylogenetic biology. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company. ISBN 978-1-936221-16-5. OCLC 767565978.
  • Stuessy, Tod F. (2009). Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14712-5. Retrieved 6 February 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.