The inference of gene trees with species trees

Molecular phylogeny has focused mainly on improving models for the reconstruction of gene trees based on sequence alignments. Yet, most phylogeneticists seek to reveal the history of species. Although the histories of genes and species are tightly linked, they are seldom identical, because genes duplicate, are lost or horizontally transferred, and because alleles can co-exist in populations for periods that may span several speciation events. Building models describing the relationship between gene and species trees can thus improve the reconstruction of gene trees when a species tree is known, and vice-versa. Several approaches have been proposed to solve the problem in one direction or the other, but in general neither gene trees nor species trees are known. Only a few studies have attempted to jointly infer gene trees and species trees. In this article we review the various models that have been used to describe the relationship between gene trees and species trees. These models account for gene duplication and loss, transfer or incomplete lineage sorting. Some of them consider several types of events together, but none exists currently that considers the full repertoire of processes that generate gene trees along the species tree. Simulations as well as empirical studies on genomic data show that combining gene tree-species tree models with models of sequence evolution improves gene tree reconstruction. In turn, these better gene trees provide a better basis for studying genome evolution or reconstructing ancestral chromosomes and ancestral gene sequences. We predict that gene tree-species tree methods that can deal with genomic data sets will be instrumental to advancing our understanding of genomic evolution.Comment: Review article in relation to the "Mathematical and Computational Evolutionary Biology" conference, Montpellier, 201

RevBayes: Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference Using Graphical Models and an Interactive Model-Specification Language.

Programs for Bayesian inference of phylogeny currently implement a unique and fixed suite of models. Consequently, users of these software packages are simultaneously forced to use a number of programs for a given study, while also lacking the freedom to explore models that have not been implemented by the developers of those programs. We developed a new open-source software package, RevBayes, to address these problems. RevBayes is entirely based on probabilistic graphical models, a powerful generic framework for specifying and analyzing statistical models. Phylogenetic-graphical models can be specified interactively in RevBayes, piece by piece, using a new succinct and intuitive language called Rev. Rev is similar to the R language and the BUGS model-specification language, and should be easy to learn for most users. The strength of RevBayes is the simplicity with which one can design, specify, and implement new and complex models. Fortunately, this tremendous flexibility does not come at the cost of slower computation; as we demonstrate, RevBayes outperforms competing software for several standard analyses. Compared with other programs, RevBayes has fewer black-box elements. Users need to explicitly specify each part of the model and analysis. Although this explicitness may initially be unfamiliar, we are convinced that this transparency will improve understanding of phylogenetic models in our field. Moreover, it will motivate the search for improvements to existing methods by brazenly exposing the model choices that we make to critical scrutiny. RevBayes is freely available at http://www.RevBayes.com [Bayesian inference; Graphical models; MCMC; statistical phylogenetics.]

On the accuracy of language trees

Historical linguistics aims at inferring the most likely language phylogenetic tree starting from information concerning the evolutionary relatedness of languages. The available information are typically lists of homologous (lexical, phonological, syntactic) features or characters for many different languages. From this perspective the reconstruction of language trees is an example of inverse problems: starting from present, incomplete and often noisy, information, one aims at inferring the most likely past evolutionary history. A fundamental issue in inverse problems is the evaluation of the inference made. A standard way of dealing with this question is to generate data with artificial models in order to have full access to the evolutionary process one is going to infer. This procedure presents an intrinsic limitation: when dealing with real data sets, one typically does not know which model of evolution is the most suitable for them. A possible way out is to compare algorithmic inference with expert classifications. This is the point of view we take here by conducting a thorough survey of the accuracy of reconstruction methods as compared with the Ethnologue expert classifications. We focus in particular on state-of-the-art distance-based methods for phylogeny reconstruction using worldwide linguistic databases. In order to assess the accuracy of the inferred trees we introduce and characterize two generalizations of standard definitions of distances between trees. Based on these scores we quantify the relative performances of the distance-based algorithms considered. Further we quantify how the completeness and the coverage of the available databases affect the accuracy of the reconstruction. Finally we draw some conclusions about where the accuracy of the reconstructions in historical linguistics stands and about the leading directions to improve it.Comment: 36 pages, 14 figure