Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets

Autores
Catalano, Santiago Andres; Torres Galvis, Ambrosio
Año de publicación
2017
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The inference of phylogenetic hypotheses from landmark data has been questioned during the last two decades. Besides theoretical concerns, one of the limitations pointed out for the use of landmark data in phylogenetics is its (supposed) lack of information relevant to the inference of phylogenetic relationships. However, empirical analyses are scarce; there exists no previous study that systematically evaluates the phylogenetic performance of landmark data in a series of data sets. In the present study, we analysed 41 published data sets in order to assess the correspondence between the phylogenetic trees derived from landmark data and those obtained with alternative and independent sources of evidence, and determined the main factors that might affect this inference. The data sets presented a variable number of terminals (5–200) and configurations (1–14), belonging to different taxonomic groups. The results showed that for most of the data sets analysed, the trees derived from landmark data presented a low correspondence with the reference phylogenies. The results were similar irrespective of the phylogenetic method considered. Complementary analyses strongly suggested that the limited amount of evidence included in each data set (one or a few landmark configurations) is the main cause for that low correspondence: the phylogenetic analysis of eight data sets that presented three or more configurations clearly showed that the inclusion of several landmark configurations improves the results. In addition, the analyses indicated that the inclusion of landmark data from different configurations is more important than the inclusion of more landmarks from the same configuration. Based on the results presented here, we consider that the poor results previously obtained in phylogenetic analyses based on landmark data were not caused by methodological limitations, but rather due to the limited amount of evidence included in the data sets.
Fil: Catalano, Santiago Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Torres Galvis, Ambrosio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Materia
Landmarks
Phylogeny
Morphology
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/56630

id CONICETDig_789307b64f4ccccee44cc679261bcd4e
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/56630
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data setsCatalano, Santiago AndresTorres Galvis, AmbrosioLandmarksPhylogenyMorphologyhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The inference of phylogenetic hypotheses from landmark data has been questioned during the last two decades. Besides theoretical concerns, one of the limitations pointed out for the use of landmark data in phylogenetics is its (supposed) lack of information relevant to the inference of phylogenetic relationships. However, empirical analyses are scarce; there exists no previous study that systematically evaluates the phylogenetic performance of landmark data in a series of data sets. In the present study, we analysed 41 published data sets in order to assess the correspondence between the phylogenetic trees derived from landmark data and those obtained with alternative and independent sources of evidence, and determined the main factors that might affect this inference. The data sets presented a variable number of terminals (5–200) and configurations (1–14), belonging to different taxonomic groups. The results showed that for most of the data sets analysed, the trees derived from landmark data presented a low correspondence with the reference phylogenies. The results were similar irrespective of the phylogenetic method considered. Complementary analyses strongly suggested that the limited amount of evidence included in each data set (one or a few landmark configurations) is the main cause for that low correspondence: the phylogenetic analysis of eight data sets that presented three or more configurations clearly showed that the inclusion of several landmark configurations improves the results. In addition, the analyses indicated that the inclusion of landmark data from different configurations is more important than the inclusion of more landmarks from the same configuration. Based on the results presented here, we consider that the poor results previously obtained in phylogenetic analyses based on landmark data were not caused by methodological limitations, but rather due to the limited amount of evidence included in the data sets.Fil: Catalano, Santiago Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Torres Galvis, Ambrosio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2017-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/56630Catalano, Santiago Andres; Torres Galvis, Ambrosio; Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Zoologica Scripta; 46; 1; 1-2017; 1-110300-3256CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/zsc.12186info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zsc.12186info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:44:27Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/56630instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:44:28.193CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
title Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
spellingShingle Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
Catalano, Santiago Andres
Landmarks
Phylogeny
Morphology
title_short Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
title_full Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
title_fullStr Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
title_full_unstemmed Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
title_sort Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Catalano, Santiago Andres
Torres Galvis, Ambrosio
author Catalano, Santiago Andres
author_facet Catalano, Santiago Andres
Torres Galvis, Ambrosio
author_role author
author2 Torres Galvis, Ambrosio
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Landmarks
Phylogeny
Morphology
topic Landmarks
Phylogeny
Morphology
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The inference of phylogenetic hypotheses from landmark data has been questioned during the last two decades. Besides theoretical concerns, one of the limitations pointed out for the use of landmark data in phylogenetics is its (supposed) lack of information relevant to the inference of phylogenetic relationships. However, empirical analyses are scarce; there exists no previous study that systematically evaluates the phylogenetic performance of landmark data in a series of data sets. In the present study, we analysed 41 published data sets in order to assess the correspondence between the phylogenetic trees derived from landmark data and those obtained with alternative and independent sources of evidence, and determined the main factors that might affect this inference. The data sets presented a variable number of terminals (5–200) and configurations (1–14), belonging to different taxonomic groups. The results showed that for most of the data sets analysed, the trees derived from landmark data presented a low correspondence with the reference phylogenies. The results were similar irrespective of the phylogenetic method considered. Complementary analyses strongly suggested that the limited amount of evidence included in each data set (one or a few landmark configurations) is the main cause for that low correspondence: the phylogenetic analysis of eight data sets that presented three or more configurations clearly showed that the inclusion of several landmark configurations improves the results. In addition, the analyses indicated that the inclusion of landmark data from different configurations is more important than the inclusion of more landmarks from the same configuration. Based on the results presented here, we consider that the poor results previously obtained in phylogenetic analyses based on landmark data were not caused by methodological limitations, but rather due to the limited amount of evidence included in the data sets.
Fil: Catalano, Santiago Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Torres Galvis, Ambrosio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
description The inference of phylogenetic hypotheses from landmark data has been questioned during the last two decades. Besides theoretical concerns, one of the limitations pointed out for the use of landmark data in phylogenetics is its (supposed) lack of information relevant to the inference of phylogenetic relationships. However, empirical analyses are scarce; there exists no previous study that systematically evaluates the phylogenetic performance of landmark data in a series of data sets. In the present study, we analysed 41 published data sets in order to assess the correspondence between the phylogenetic trees derived from landmark data and those obtained with alternative and independent sources of evidence, and determined the main factors that might affect this inference. The data sets presented a variable number of terminals (5–200) and configurations (1–14), belonging to different taxonomic groups. The results showed that for most of the data sets analysed, the trees derived from landmark data presented a low correspondence with the reference phylogenies. The results were similar irrespective of the phylogenetic method considered. Complementary analyses strongly suggested that the limited amount of evidence included in each data set (one or a few landmark configurations) is the main cause for that low correspondence: the phylogenetic analysis of eight data sets that presented three or more configurations clearly showed that the inclusion of several landmark configurations improves the results. In addition, the analyses indicated that the inclusion of landmark data from different configurations is more important than the inclusion of more landmarks from the same configuration. Based on the results presented here, we consider that the poor results previously obtained in phylogenetic analyses based on landmark data were not caused by methodological limitations, but rather due to the limited amount of evidence included in the data sets.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/56630
Catalano, Santiago Andres; Torres Galvis, Ambrosio; Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Zoologica Scripta; 46; 1; 1-2017; 1-11
0300-3256
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/56630
identifier_str_mv Catalano, Santiago Andres; Torres Galvis, Ambrosio; Phylogenetic inference based on landmark data in 41 empirical data sets; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Zoologica Scripta; 46; 1; 1-2017; 1-11
0300-3256
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/zsc.12186
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zsc.12186
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842268667824308224
score 13.13397