Assessing Phylogenetic Hypotheses and Phylogenetic Data

1
Assessing Phylogenetic Hypotheses and
Phylogenetic Data

• We use numerical phylogenetic methods because
  most data includes potentially misleading
  evidence of relationships
• We should not be content with constructing
  phylogenetic hypotheses but should also assess
  what confidence we can place in our hypotheses
• This is not always simple! (but do not despair!)

2
Assessing Data Quality

• We expect (or hope) our data will be well
  structured and contain strong phylogenetic signal
• We can test this using randomization tests of
  explicit null hypotheses
• The behaviour or some measure of the quality of
  our real data is contrasted with that of
  comparable but phylogenetically uninformative
  data determined by randomization

3
Random Permutation

• Random permutation destroys any correlation among
  characters to that expected by chance alone
• It preserves number of taxa, characters and
  character states in each character (and the
  theoretical maximum and minimum tree lengths)

T
A
X
A


C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
S

Original structured data with strong correlations
among characters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
R
-
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
A
-
E
A
E
A
E
A
E
A
E
N
-
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
D
-
M
D
M
D
M
D
M
D
M
O
-
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
M
-
T
M
T
M
T
M
T
M
T
L
-
E
L
E
L
E
L
E
L
E
Y
-
D
Y
D
Y
D
Y
D
Y
D

T
A
X
A


C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
S

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Randomly permuted data with any correlation
among characters due to chance
R
-
P
N
U
D
E
R
T
O
U
A
-
E
R
E
A
P
L
E
A
D
N
-
R
M
R
M
M
A
D
N
P
D
-
M
L
T
R
E
Y
M
D
R
O
-
U
D
E
Y
U
D
E
Y
M
M
-
T
O
M
O
T
O
U
L
T
L
-
E
Y
D
N
D
M
P
M
E
Y
-
D
A
P
L
R
N
R
R
E
4
Matrix Randomization Tests

• Compare some measure of data quality/hierarchical
  structure for the real and many randomly permuted
  data sets
• This allows us to define a test statistic for the
  null hypothesis that the real data are no better
  structured than randomly permuted and
  phylogenetically uninformative data
• A permutation tail probability (PTP) is the
  proportion of data sets with as good or better
  measure of quality than the real data

5
Structure of Randomization Tests

• Reject null hypothesis if, for example, more than
  5 of random permutations have as good or better
  measure than the real data

6
Matrix Randomization Tests

• Measures of data quality include
• 1. Tree length for most parsimonious trees - the
  shorter the tree length the better the data
  (PAUP)
• 2. Numbers of pairwise incompatibilities between
  characters (pairs of incongruent characters) -
  the fewer character conflicts the better the data
• 3. Skewness of the distribution of tree lengths
  (PAUP)

7
Matrix Randomization Tests
Ciliate SSUrDNA
Min 430 Max 927
1 MPT L 618 CI 0.696 RI 0.714 PTP
0.01 PC-PTP 0.001 Significantly non random
Real data
3 MPTs L 792 CI 0.543 RI 0.272 PTP
0.68 PC-PTP 0.737 Not significantly
different from random
Randomly permuted
Strict consensus
8
Skewness of Tree Length Distributions

• Skewness of tree length distributions can be used
  as a measure of data quality in randomization
  tests
• It is measured with the G1 statistic in PAUP
• Significance cut-offs for data sets of up to
  eight taxa have been published based on randomly
  generated data (rather than randomly permuted
  data)
• PAUP does not perform the more direct
  randomization test

9
Skewness of Tree Length Distributions

• Studies with random (and phylogenetically
  uninformative) data showed that the distribution
  of tree lengths tends to be normal

shortest
NUMBER OF TREES
tree
Tree length

• In contrast, phylogenetically informative data
  is expected to have a strongly skewed
  distribution with few shortest trees and few
  trees nearly as short

shortest
NUMBER OF TREES
tree
Tree length
10
Skewness - example
11
Matrix Randomization Tests - use and limitations

• Can detect very poor data - that provides no good
  basis for phylogenetic inferences (throw it
  away!)
• However, only very little may be needed to reject
  the null hypothesis (passing test ? great data)
• Doesnt indicate location of this structure (more
  discerning tests are possible)
• In the skewness test, significance levels for G1
  have been determined for small numbers of taxa
  only so that this test remains of limited use

12
Assessing Phylogenetic Hypotheses - groups on
trees

• Several methods have been proposed that attach
  numerical values to nodes in trees that are
  intended to provide some measure of the strength
  of support for that node
• These methods include
• character resampling methods - the bootstrap and
  jackknife
• decay analyses
• additional randomization tests

13
Bootstrapping

• Bootstrapping is a modern statistical technique
  that uses computer intensive random resampling of
  data to determine sampling error or confidence
  intervals for some estimated parameter

14
Bootstrapping (non-parametric)

• Characters are resampled with replacement to
  create many bootstrap replicate data sets
• Each bootstrap replicate data set is analysed
  (e.g. with parsimony, distance, ML)
• Agreement among the resulting trees is summarized
  with a majority-rule consensus tree
• Frequency of occurrence of groups, bootstrap
  proportions (BPs), is a measure of support for
  those groups
• Additional information is given in partition
  tables

15
Bootstrapping
Resampled data matrix
Original data matrix


Characters
Characters
Summarise the results of multiple analyses with a
majority-rule consensus tree Bootstrap
proportions (BPs) are the frequencies with which
groups are encountered in analyses of replicate
data sets
Taxa 1 2 2 5 5 6 6 8
Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A R R R Y Y Y Y Y
A R R Y Y Y Y Y Y
B R R R Y Y Y Y Y
B R R Y Y Y Y Y Y
C Y Y Y Y Y R R R
C Y Y Y Y Y R R R
D Y Y Y R R R R R
D Y Y R R R R R R
Outgp R R R R R R R R
Outgp R R R R R R R R
Randomly resample characters from the original
data with replacement to build many bootstrap
replicate data sets of the same size as the
original - analyse each replicate data set
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
B
C
D
A
1
5
1
2
5
96
2
8
8
7
2
6
6
66
2
6
5
1
4
3
Outgroup
Outgroup
Outgroup
16
Bootstrapping - an example
Partition Table
Ciliate SSUrDNA - parsimony bootstrap
123456789 Freq ----------------- .......
100.00 ....... 100.00 .......
100.00 ..... 100.00 ...
95.50 ....... 84.33 ....
11.83 .... 3.83 ..
2.50 ...... 1.00 ...... 1.00
Ochromonas (1)
Symbiodinium (2)
100
Prorocentrum (3)
Euplotes (8)
84
Tetrahymena (9)
96
Loxodes (4)
100
Tracheloraphis (5)
100
Spirostomum (6)
100
Gruberia (7)
Majority-rule consensus
17
Bootstrapping - random data
Partition Table
123456789 Freq ----------------- ..
71.17 ....... 58.87 .......
26.43 ....... 25.67 ...
23.83 ....... 21.00 ....
18.50 ....... 16.00 ......
15.67 ..... 13.17 .....
12.67 ...... 12.00 .......
12.00 ..... 11.00 .......
10.80 ...... 10.50 ...... 10.00
Randomly permuted data - parsimony bootstrap
Majority-rule consensus (with minority components)
18
Bootstrap - interpretation

• Bootstrapping was introduced as a way of
  establishing confidence intervals for phylogenies
  
• This interpretation of bootstrap proportions
  (BPs) depends on the assumption that the original
  data is a random sample from a much larger set of
  independent and identically distributed data
• However, several things complicate this
  interpretation
• Many systematists consider these assumptions
  unreasonable making any statistical
  interpretation of BPs invalid
• Some theoretical work indicates that BPs are very
  conservative, and may underestimate confidence
  intervals - problem increases with numbers of
  taxa
• BPs can be high for incongruent relationships in
  separate analyses - and can therefore be
  misleading (misleading data -gt misleading BPs)
• with parsimony it may be highly affected by
  inclusion or exclusion of a few characters

19
Bootstrap - interpretation

• Bootstrapping is a very valuable and widely used
  technique (it is demanded by some journals), but
  requires a pragmatic interpretation
• BPs depend on two aspects of the support for a
  group - the numbers of characters supporting a
  group and the level of support for incongruent
  groups
• BPs thus provides a reasonable index of the
  relative support for groups provided by a set of
  data

20
Bootstrap - interpretation

• High BPs (e.g. gt85) is indicative of strong
  signal in the data
• Provided we have no evidence of strong misleading
  signal (e.g. base composition biases, great
  differences in branch lengths) high BPs are
  likely to reflect strong phylogenetic signal
• Low BPs need not mean the relationship is false!
  Its just poorly supported
• Bootstrapping can be viewed as a way of exploring
  the robustness of phylogenetic inferences to
  perturbations in the the balance of supporting
  and conflicting evidence for groups

21
Jackknifing

• Jackknifing is very similar to bootstrapping and
  differs only in the character resampling strategy
• Some proportion of characters (e.g. 50) are
  randomly selected and deleted
• Replicate data sets are analysed and the results
  summarised with a majority-rule consensus tree
• Jackknifing and bootstrapping tend to produce
  broadly similar results and have similar
  interpretations

22
Decay analysis

• In parsimony analysis, a way to assess support
  for a group is to see if the group occurs in
  slightly less parsimonious trees also
• The length difference between the shortest trees
  including the group and the shortest trees that
  exclude the group (the extra steps required to
  overturn a group) is the decay index or Bremer
  support
• Total support (for a tree) is the sum of all
  clade decay indices - this has been advocated as
  a measure for an as yet unavailable matrix
  randomization test

23
Decay analysis -example
Ciliate SSUrDNA data
Randomly permuted data
Ochromonas
27
Symbiodinium
1
Prorocentrum
1
45
Loxodes
3
Tetrahymena
Tracheloraphis
8
15
Spirostomum
10
Euplotes
7
Gruberia
24
Decay analyses - in practice

• Decay indices for each clade can be determined
  by
• Saving increasingly less parsimonious trees and
  producing corresponding strict component
  consensus trees until the consensus is completely
  unresolved
• analyses using reverse topological constraints to
  determine shortest trees that lack each clade
• with the Autodecay program (in conjunction with
  PAUP)

25
Decay indices - interpretation

• Generally, the higher the decay index the better
  the relative support for a group
• Like BPs, decay indices may be misleading if the
  data is misleading
• Unlike BPs decay indices are not scaled (0-100)
  and it is less clear what is an acceptable decay
  index
• Magnitude of decay indices and BPs generally
  correlated (i.e. they tend to agree)
• Only groups found in all most parsimonious trees
  have decay indices gt zero

26
Decay indices - extensions

• Traditional decay analysis is the determination
  of decay indices of clades
• Double decay analysis is the determination of
  decay indices for all relationships - gives a
  more comprehensive but potentially very
  complicated summary of support
• Analogues of parsimony decay indices are possible
  for any optimality criterion (objective function)

27
Types of Cladistic Relationships
28
PTP tests of groups

• A number of randomization tests have been
  proposed for evaluating particular groups rather
  than entire data matrices by testing null
  hypotheses regarding the level of support they
  receive from the data
• Randomisation can be of the data or the group
• These methods have not become widely used both
  because they are not readily performed and
  because their properties are still under
  investigation
• Topology dependent PTP tests are included in
  PAUP but have serious problems (they dont work!)

29
Comparing competing phylogenetic hypotheses -
tests of two trees

• Particularly useful techniques are those designed
  to allow evaluation of alternative phylogenetic
  hypotheses
• Several such tests allow us to determine if one
  tree is statistically significantly worse than
  another
• Winning sites test, Templeton test,
  Kishino-Hasegawa test,
• Shimodaira-Hasegawa test, parametric bootstrapping

30
Tests of two trees

• All these tests are of the null hypothesis that
  the differences between two trees (A and B) are
  no greater than expected from sampling error
• The simplest wining sites test sums the number
  of sites supporting tree A over tree B and vice
  versa (those having fewer steps on, and better
  fit to, one of the trees)
• Under the null hypothesis characters are equally
  likely to support tree A or tree B and a binomial
  distribution gives the probability of the
  observed difference in numbers of winning sites

31
The Templeton test

• Templetons test is a non-parametric Wilcoxon
  signed ranks test of the differences in fits of
  characters to two trees
• It is like the winning sites test but also
  takes into account the magnitudes of differences
  in the support of characters for the two trees

32
Templetons test - an example
Recent studies of the relationships of turtles
using morphological data have produced very
different results with turtles grouping either
within the parareptiles (H1) or within the
diapsids (H2) the result depending on
the morphologist This suggests there may be -
problems with the data - special problems with
turtles - weak support for turtle relationships
1
Archosauromorpha
Lepidosauriformes
Diadectomorpha
Eosauropterygia
Younginiformes
Seymouriadae
Claudiosaurus
Captorhinidae
Araeoscelidia
Parareptilia
Paleothyris
Synapsida
Placodus
2
Parsimony analysis of the most recent data
favoured H2 However, analyses constrained by H2
produced trees that required only 3 extra steps
(lt1 tree length)
The Templeton test was used to evaluate the trees
and showed that the slightly longer H1 tree
found in the constrained analyses was not
significantly worse than the unconstrained H2
tree The morphological data do not allow choice
between H1 and H2
33
Kishino-Hasegawa test

• The Kishino-Hasegawa test is similar in using
  differences in the support provided by individual
  sites for two trees to determine if the overall
  differences between the trees are significantly
  greater than expected from random sampling error
• It is a parametric test that depends on
  assumptions that the characters are independent
  and identically distributed (the same assumptions
  underlying the statistical interpretation of
  bootstrapping)
• It can be used with parsimony and maximum
  likelihood - implemented in PHYLIP and PAUP

34
Kishino-Hasegawa test
If the difference between trees (tree lengths or
likelihoods) is attributable to sampling error,
then characters will randomly support tree A or B
and the total difference will be close to
zero The observed difference is significantly
greater than zero if it is greater than 1.95
standard deviations This allows us to reject the
null hypothesis and declare the sub-optimal tree
significantly worse than the optimal tree (p lt
0.05)
Sites favouring tree A
Sites favouring tree B
Expected
Mean
0
Distribution of Step/Likelihood differences at
each site
Under the null hypothesis the mean of the
differences in parsimony steps or likelihoods for
each site is expected to be zero, and the
distribution normal From observed differences we
calculate a standard deviation
35
Kishino-Hasegawa test - an example
Ciliate SSUrDNA
Ochromonas
Symbiodinium
Maximum likelihood tree
Prorocentrum
Sarcocystis
Theileria
Parsimonious character optimization of the
presence and absence of hydrogenosomes suggests
four separate origins of hydrogenosomes within
the ciliates
Plagiopyla n
Plagiopyla f
Trimyema c
Trimyema s
Cyclidium p
Cyclidium g
Cyclidium l
Glaucoma
Colpodinium
Tetrahymena
Paramecium
Discophrya
Trithigmostoma
Opisthonecta
Colpoda
Dasytrichia
Questions - how reliable is this result? - in
particular how well supported is the idea of
multiple origins? - how many origins can we
confidently infer?
Entodinium
Spathidium
Loxophylum
Homalozoon
Metopus c
Metopus p
Stylonychia
Onychodromous
Oxytrichia
Loxodes
Tracheloraphis
Spirostomum
Gruberia
anaerobic ciliates with hydrogenosomes
Blepharisma
36
Kishino-Hasegawa test - an example
Ciliate SSUrDNA data Most parsimonious tree
Ochromonas
99-100
Symbiodinium
Parsimony analysis yields a very similar tree -
in particular, parsimonious character
optimization indicates four separate origins
of hydrogenosomes within ciliates
95-100
11
Prorocentrum
7
Sarcocystis
81-86
Theileria
100
33
3
Plagiopyla n
100
48
Plagiopyla f
100
27
Trimyema c
15-0
Trimyema s
69-99
3
Glaucoma
11-0
100
75
6
Colpodinium
3
35-17
Tetrahymena
Paramecium
3
7
Cyclidium p
12
41-30
Cyclidium g
78-99
Cyclidium l
89-91
3
Discophryal
Trithigmostoma
100-99
23
46-26
3
Opisthonecta
100-98
18-0
Dasytrichia
50-53
17
Entodinium
67-99
1
3
Spathidium
100
56
3
Homalozoon
53-45
Decay indices and BPs for parsimony and distance
analyses indicate relative support for
clades Differences between the ML, MP
and distance trees generally reflect the less
well supported relationships
Loxophylum
69-78
100 42
5
Metopus c
4
Metopus p
3
83-82
45-72
Stylonychia
Onychodromous
100
27
Oxytrichia
96-100
Colpoda
10
Loxodes
Tracheloraphis
100
63
Spirostomum
100
26
Gruberia
100
18
80-50
Blepharisma
3
37
Kishino-Hasegawa test - example
Parsimony analyse with topological constraints
were used to find the shortest trees that forced
hydrogenosomal ciliate lineages together and
thereby reduced the number of separate origins
of hydrogenosomes
Ochromonas
Ochromonas
Symbiodinium
Symbiodinium
Prorocentrum
Prorocentrum
Sarcocystis
Sarcocystis
Theileria
Theileria
Plagiopyla n
Plagiopyla n
Plagiopyla f
Plagiopyla f
Trimyema c
Trimyema c
Trimyema s
Trimyema s
Cyclidium p
Cyclidium p
Cyclidium g
Metopus c
Cyclidium l
Metopus p
Dasytrichia
Dasytrichia
Entodinium
Entodinium
Loxophylum
Cyclidium g
Homalozoon
Cyclidium l
Spathidium
Loxophylum
Metopus c
Spathidium
Metopus p
Homalozoon
Loxodes
Loxodes
Each of the constrained parsimony trees were
compared to the ML tree and the Kishino-Hasegawa
test used to determine which of these trees were
significantly worse than the ML tree
Tracheloraphis
Tracheloraphis
Spirostomum
Spirostomum
Gruberia
Gruberia
Blepharisma
Blepharisma
Discophrya
Discophrya
Trithigmostoma
Trithigmostoma
Stylonychia
Stylonychia
Onychodromous
Onychodromous
Oxytrichia
Oxytrichia
Colpoda
Colpoda
Paramecium
Paramecium
Glaucoma
Glaucoma
Colpodinium
Colpodinium
Tetrahymena
Tetrahymena
Opisthonecta
Opisthonecta
Two examples of the topological constraint trees
38
Kishino-Hasegawa test
Test summary and results - origins of ciliate
hydrogenosomes (simplified)
Constrained analyses used to find most
parsimonious trees with less than four separate
origins of hydrogenosomes Tested against ML
tree Trees with 2 or 1 origin are all
significantly worse than the ML tree We can
confidently conclude that there have been at
least three separate origins of hydrogenosomes
within the sampled ciliates
N
o
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
E
x
t
r
a
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
O
r
i
g
i
n
s
t
r
e
e
S
t
e
p
s
a
n
d

S
D
w
o
r
s
e
?
4
M
L

1
0
-
-
4
M
P
-
-
1
3

?

1
8
N
o
3
(
c
p
,
p
t
)

1
3
-
2
1

?

2
2
N
o
3
(
c
p
,
r
c
)

1
1
3
-
3
3
7

?

4
0
Y
e
s
3
(
c
p
,
m
)

4
7
-
1
4
7

?

3
6
Y
e
s
3
(
p
t
,
r
c
)

9
6
-
2
7
9

?

3
8
Y
e
s
3
(
p
t
,
m
)

2
2
-
6
8

?

2
9
Y
e
s
3
(
r
c
,
m
)

6
3
-
1
9
0

?

3
4
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
c
p
,
r
c
)

1
2
3
-
4
3
2

?

4
0
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
r
c
,
m
)

1
0
0
-
3
5
3

?

4
3
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
c
p
,
m
)

4
0
-
1
4
0

?

3
7
Y
e
s
2
(
c
p
,
r
c
,
m
)

1
2
4
-
4
6
6

?

4
9
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
c
p
)
(
r
c
,
m
)

7
7
-
2
2
2

?

3
9
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
m
)
(
r
c
,
c
p
)

1
3
1
-
4
4
2

?

4
8
Y
e
s
2
(
p
t
,
r
c
)
(
c
p
,
m
)

1
4
0
-
4
1
4

?

5
0
Y
e
s
1
(
p
t
,
c
p
,
m
,
r
c
)

1
3
1
-
5
1
5

?

4
9
Y
e
s
39
Shimodaira-Hasegawa Test

• To be statistically valid, the Kishino-Hasegawa
  test should be of trees that are selected a
  priori
• However, most applications have used trees
  selected a posteriori on the basis of the
  phylogenetic analysis
• Where we test the best tree against some other
  tree the KH test will be biased towards rejection
  of the null hypothesis
• The SH test is a similar but more statistically
  correct technique in these circumstances

40
Reliability of Phylogenetic Methods

• Phylogenetic methods (e.g. parsimony, distance,
  ML) can also be evaluated in terms of their
  general performance, particularly their
• consistency - approach the truth with more data
• efficiency - how quickly (how much data)
• robustness - how sensitive to violations of
  assumptions
• Studies of these properties can be analytical or
  by simulation

41
Reliability of Phylogenetic Methods

• There have been many arguments that ML methods
  are best because they have desirable statistical
  properties, such as consistency
• However, ML does not always have these properties
• if the model is wrong/inadequate
• properties not yet demonstrated for complex
  inference problems such as phylogenetic trees

42
Reliability of Phylogenetic Methods

• Simulations show that ML methods generally
  outperform distance and parsimony methods over a
  broad range of realistic conditions
• Whelan et al. 2001 Trends in Genetics
  17262-272
• Most simulations are very (unrealistically)
  simple
• few taxa (typically just four)
• few parameters (standard models - JC, K2P etc)

43
Reliability of Phylogenetic Methods

• Simulations with four taxa have shown
• Model based methods - distance and maximum
  likelihood perform well when the model is
  accurate (not surprising!)
• Violations of assumptions can lead to
  inconsistency for all methods (a Felsenstein
  zone) when branch lengths or rates are highly
  unequal
• Maximum likelihood methods are quite robust to
  violations of model assumptions
• Weighted parsimony can perform better than
  standard parsimony (has a smaller Felsenstein
  zone) in some cases

44
Reliability of Phylogenetic Methods

• However
• Generalising from four taxon simulations may be
  dangerous as conclusions may not hold for more
  complex cases
• A few large scale simulations (many taxa) have
  suggested that parsimony can be very accurate and
  efficient
• Most methods are accurate in correctly recovering
  known phylogenies produced in laboratory studies
• More study of methods is needed to help in choice
  of method using more realistic simulations

45
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PATRICIA