O'Grady Lab
  • Home
  • News and Events
  • People
    • Current Members
    • Undergraduate Research
    • Past Members
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Data
    • Mitochondrial Primers
    • Nuclear Primers
    • Accession Numbers
  • Photos
  • Courses
  • Educational Outreach
  • Links

Divergence dating freed from node calibrations

11/9/2012

3 Comments

 
    Attempting to estimate divergence dates on molecular phylogenies is a messy affair. Bayesian methods (for example, BEAST and MrBayes) have the advantage of being able to accommodate a lot of unknowns and still often are able to generate distributions that seem to contain the true likely divergence date of interest. Three classes of information can be included in a Bayesian analysis of divergence dating to calibrate the phylogeny: molecular rates, biogeographic information, and fossils. Fossils tend to be thought of as the gold standard among these three – researchers take the date for the oldest known fossil from their group of interest and apply it as a calibration on a node in their phylogeny. However, this presents a few issues. First, fossils are often imperfectly preserved, making them difficult to place taxonomically. Second, it can be difficult to come up with appropriate prior distributions to apply in the dating machinery. In addition, in current dating methods, researchers have to assume that they know for certain on which group’s node to place a fossil calibration and that the group is monophyletic – both of these can be strong assumptions.

    In a new paper by Ronquist et al (2012), researchers present a new approach for dealing with these issues, using MrBayes 3.2. Instead of placing a calibration on a node in the phylogeny, the fossil is included as a species in the data matrix. How it works is that extant species in the data set have molecular and morphological characters included, while the extinct species are coded for all the morphological characters that can be assigned (usually a subset of all of the characters because it is often not possible to see all of the characters on a fossil). Rather than calibrating nodes of groups the user defines, the user can enter the dates of the strata the fossils came from as a calibration on the taxa itself. The Mr.Bayes machinery then takes this information and estimates a phylogenetic tree, placing the fossils alongside the extant taxa based on their morphological characters and using their dates to estimate divergence times for the rest of the tree. This approach is neat because it removes error associated with improperly classifying fossils and having to restrict the node it is placed on to be monophyletic.

    Ronquist et al (2012) test the method on a data set of the early Hymenoptera radiation that includes 45 fossils, many of which are poorly preserved, and also run a comparative analysis using the more traditional node-dating technique. One issue they had to deal with in the development of this approach was that they did not feel that existing tree priors (e.g. birth-death, Yule) could be reasonably applied to their data set. So, they developed and described a new, uninformative tree prior that allows the tree to have terminals of different ages, which allows the branch length information to come from the data.

    Because this was a proof-of-concept paper, they did extensive exploration of the method, sensitivity analyses, and took a lot of care with selecting their prior distributions. They first ran an uncalibrated analysis of the data, from which they could detect significant rate variation among the lineages. Because of this, they did not want to use a strict clock for the analysis (which assumes rates are the same along all of the branches in the tree). Instead, they wanted to allow for the rates to vary among the branches, so used a relaxed clock approach. There are several relaxed clock models available that model how rates vary in very different ways. As it was not clear which model fit their data best, they ran the analysis with three different models (two autocorrelated models and one uncorrelated model) and compared them using Bayes Factors. In addition to helping them identify the best model for their data, this allowed them to showcase one of the many new features in MrBayes 3.2, calculation of the marginal likelihoods using stepping-stone sampling. This is a major advance for MrBayes users, allowing them to do model comparisons and hypothesis testing without having to use the harmonic mean estimator of the likelihood, which is known to produce biased estimates. Plus, it was a really nice description for users of a method for going about accounting for rate variation for their own data sets.

    In their final comparison of the Total-Evidence approach versus the node dating approach, Ronquist et al found several interesting things. First, they found that their method produced a tree that compared well topologically and in its estimates of divergence times with previous studies. They also found that their method is both more precise (smaller error bars) and less sensitive to prior choice than the node dating approach. Finally, the Total-Evidence analysis produced posterior probability distributions of less than 50% for over half of the fossils used as node calibrations in the node dating approach (even though the authors had sub-selected only the best-understood fossils in the group), indicating that their placement in the tree is highly uncertain, and thus indicating that specifying which node they belong to is inappropriate.

    Ronquist et al’s findings suggest that this is a method worth continuing to explore. Carefully selecting models and priors and running sensitivity analyses will be important for users as they begin testing this on new data sets. The authors provide their nexus file with all of the blocks of commands as supplementary information, so you can see for yourself how these elegant analyses are set up.

Kari Goodman

Ronquist, F., Kloppstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L, Schulmeister, S., Murray, D.L. and A.P. Rasnitsyn 2012. A Total-Evidence Approach to Dating with Fossils, Applied to the Early Radiation of the Hymenoptera. Systematic Biology 61 (6): 973-999.

3 Comments
Brian Ort
11/9/2012 05:47:38 am

Interesting that two very different approaches to circumventing the problems associated with node dating came out within a month of each other. Clearly this issue of uncertainty around fossil calibrations has been around for a long time, but it I like that new approaches are being proposed that go beyond estimating the uncertainty in fossil dates.

Reply
visit here link
8/4/2013 09:12:37 pm

Good to read about phylogeny and the value of each fossil is very much. The discovery of each fossil pay the way for new studies or link to the existing one. The article that you shared is very useful to know about phylogeny and thank you for sharing it.

Reply
hop over to this web-site link
11/2/2013 12:12:49 am


Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Patrick

    Professor
    Cornell University

    Archives

    April 2018
    March 2018
    August 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    September 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    September 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    January 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011
    May 2011
    February 2011

    Categories

    All
    1090
    1091
    Alumni
    Aquatic Insects
    Arizona
    Asteia
    Barcoding
    Bennett
    Blog
    Career
    Celebrations
    Chelsea
    Climate Change
    Cornell
    Craft
    Dicranota
    Dolichopodidae
    Drosophila
    Ephydra
    Ephydridae
    Field Work
    Funding
    Goodman
    Hawaiian Drosophila
    Keys
    Kidwell
    Lapoint
    Limonia
    Magnacca
    Marrack
    Montana
    Nesophrosyne
    New Species
    Ogrady
    Ort
    Paceyn
    Pak
    Panbiogeography
    Pediciidae
    Peterson
    Phylogenetic Methods
    Publications
    Readings
    Rhaphidolabis
    Scaptomyza
    Scatella
    Schedule
    Stauffer
    Sylvain
    Talks
    Taxonomy
    Tipula
    Undergraduates
    Unicorns
    Whiteman Lab
    Wojciechowski
    Wolbachia
    Wyoming
    Yeast And Fungi

    RSS Feed