Phylogenomics of the superfamily Dytiscoidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga) with an evaluation of phylogenetic conflict and systematic error.

The beetle superfamily Dytiscoidea, placed within the suborder Adephaga, comprises six families. The phylogenetic relationships of these families, whose species are aquatic, remain highly contentious. In particular the monophyly of the geographically disjunct Aspidytidae (China and South Africa) remains unclear. Here we use a phylogenomic approach to demonstrate that Aspidytidae are indeed monophyletic, as we inferred this phylogenetic relationship from analyzing nucleotide sequence data filtered for compositional heterogeneity and from analyzing amino-acid sequence data. Our analyses suggest that Aspidytidae are the sister group of Amphizoidae, although the support for this relationship is not unequivocal. A sister group relationship of Hygrobiidae to a clade comprising Amphizoidae, Aspidytidae, and Dytiscidae is supported by analyses in which model assumptions are violated the least. In general, we find that both concatenation and the applied coalescent method are sensitive to the effect of among-species compositional heterogeneity. Four-cluster likelihood-mapping suggests that despite the substantial size of the dataset and the use of advanced analytical methods, statistical support is weak for the inferred phylogenetic placement of Hygrobiidae. These results indicate that other kinds of data (e.g. genomic meta-characters) are possibly required to resolve the above-specified persisting phylogenetic uncertainties. Our study illustrates various data-driven confounding effects in phylogenetic reconstructions and highlights the need for careful monitoring of model violations prior to phylogenomic analysis

Understanding Influenza

Influenza, a serious illness of humans and domesticated animals, has been studied intensively for many years. It therefore provides an example of how much we can learn from detailed studies of an infectious disease and of how even the most intensive scientific research leaves further questions to answer. This introduction is written for researchers who have become interested in one of these unanswered questions, but who may not have previously worked on influenza. To investigate these questions, researchers must not only have a firm grasp of relevant methods and protocols; they must also be familiar with the basic details of our current understanding of influenza. This article therefore briefly covers the burden of disease that has driven influenza research, summarizes how our thinking about influenza has evolved over time, and sets out key features of influenza viruses by discussing how we classify them and what we understand of their replication. It does not aim to be comprehensive, as any researcher will read deeply into the specific areas that have grasped their interest. Instead, it aims to provide a general summary of how we came to think about influenza in the way we do now, in the hope that the reader’s own research will help us to understand it better