Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

O R Bininda-Emonds

Publications and source records attributed to O R Bininda-Emonds.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Comparative methods in developmental biology.

The need for a phylogenetic framework is becoming appreciated in many areas of biology. Such a framework has found limited use in developmental studies. Our current research program is therefore directed to applying comparative and phylogenetic methods to developmental data. In this paper, we examine the concepts underlying this work, discuss potential difficulties, and identify some solutions. While developmental biologists frequently make cross-species comparisons, they usually adopt a phenetic approach, whereby degrees of overall similarity in development are sought. Little emphasis is placed on reconstructing the evolutionary divergence in developmental characters. Indeed, developmental biologists have historically concentrated on apparently 'conserved' or 'universal' developmental mechanisms. Thus, there has been little need for phylogenetic methodologies which analyse specialised features shared only within a subset of species (i.e., synapomorphies). We discuss the potential value of such methodologies, and argue that difficulties in adapting them to developmental studies fall into three interlinked areas: One concerns the nature and definition of developmental characters. Another is the difficulty of identifying equivalent developmental stages in different species. Finally the phylogenetic non-independence of developmental characters presents real problems under some protocols. These problems are not resolved. However, it is clear that the application of phylogenetic methodology to developmental data is both necessary and fundamental to research into the relationship between evolution and development.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2001

Scaling of accuracy in extremely large phylogenetic trees.

The accuracy of phylogenetic inference was examined in simulated data sets up to nearly 10,000 taxa, the size of the largest set of homologous genes in existing molecular sequence databases. Even with a simple search algorithm (maximum parsimony without branch swapping), the number of characters needed to estimate 80% of a tree correctly can scale remarkably well at optimal substitution rates (on the order of log N, where N is the number of taxa). In other words, the number of taxa in an analysis can be doubled and only an arithmetic increase in the number of characters is required to maintain the same level of accuracy. Even substitution rates that are much higher than normally used in phylogenetic studies did not affect the scaling too adversely. However, scaling is usually worse than log N for more stringent levels of accuracy. Moreover, errors are not distributed randomly throughout the tree. Shallow nodes are remarkably easy to reconstruct and display favourable log-linear scaling. The deepest nodes are extremely difficult to reconstruct accurately, even with branch swapping, and the scaling is poor. Therefore, the strategy of sequencing large numbers of homologous genes may not always provide global solutions to extreme phylogenetic problems and alternative strategies may be required.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2001

Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction.

Despite the growing popularity of supertree construction for combining phylogenetic information to produce more inclusive phylogenies, large-scale performance testing of this method has not been done. Through simulation, we tested the accuracy of the most widely used supertree method, matrix representation with parsimony analysis (MRP), with respect to a (maximum parsimony) total evidence solution and a known model tree. When source trees overlap completely, MRP provided a reasonable approximation of the total evidence tree; agreement was usually > 85%. Performance improved slightly when using smaller, more numerous, or more congruent source trees, and especially when elements were weighted in proportion to the bootstrap frequencies of the nodes they represented on each source tree ("weighted MRP"). Although total evidence always estimated the model tree slightly better than nonweighted MRP methods, weighted MRP in turn usually out-performed total evidence slightly. When source studies were even moderately nonoverlapping (i.e., sharing only three-quarters of the taxa), the high proportion of missing data caused a loss in resolution that severely degraded the performance for all methods, including total evidence. In such cases, even combining more trees, which had positive effects elsewhere, did not improve accuracy. Instead, "seeding" the supertree or total evidence analyses with a single largely complete study improved performance substantially. This finding could be an important strategy for any studies that seek to combine phylogenetic information. Overall, our results suggest that MRP supertree construction provides a reasonable approximation of a total evidence solution and that weighted MRP should be used whenever possible.

Biometry↗
PubMed2000

Factors influencing phylogenetic inference: a case study using the mammalian carnivores.

Phylogenetic reconstruction has undergone numerous developments in tree selection criteria (e.g., phenetics, cladistics, maximum-likelihood), available data sources (morphology versus molecules, and subsets of the latter), and practical limits on study size. Together with study age, I examined the effects of these variables on inferences of phylogeny for the mammalian order Carnivora. The raw data comprised 274 source trees spread among 13 carnivore taxa (generally families), which I divided into categories for each variable and combined using the supertree technique matrix representation with parsimony analysis. Incongruence between the resultant tree topologies or the underlying data was assessed using four comparison measures, each with slightly different properties: the triplet measures "do not conflict" and "explicitly agree," the partition metric, and the incongruence length difference metric. Except for a few cases reflecting historical problem areas in carnivore systematics, no significant differences in incongruence levels were found among the different categories within each variable, between the variables themselves, or between the taxa. Thus, most estimates of carnivore phylogeny cannot be distinguished from one another (and may even point toward the same solution) regardless of the methodology or data source employed. This conclusion held regardless of the comparison measure used.

Animals↗
PubMed2000

Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analyses.

It is widely assumed that adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle are so profound as to produce only obvious differences between pinnipeds and the remaining, largely terrestrial carnivore species ("fissipeds"). Thus, comparative studies of the order Carnivora routinely examine these groups independently. This approach is invalid for two reasons. First, fissipeds are a paraphyletic assemblage, which raises the general issue of when it is appropriate to ignore monophyly as a criterion for inclusion in comparative studies. Second, the claim that most functional characters (beyond a few undoubted characteristic features) are different in pinnipeds and fissipeds has never been quantitatively examined, nor with phylogenetic comparative methods. We test for possible differences between these two groups in relation to 20 morphological, life-history, physiological, and ecological variables. Comparisons employed the method of independent contrasts based on a complete and dated species-level phylogeny of the extant Carnivora. Pinnipeds differ from fissipeds only through evolutionary grade shifts in a limited number of life-history traits: litter weight (vs. gestation length), birth weight, and age of eyes opening (both vs. size). Otherwise, pinnipeds display the same rate of evolution as phylogenetically equivalent fissiped taxa for all variables. Overall functional differences between pinnipeds and fissipeds appear to have been overstated and may be no greater than those among major fissiped groups. Recognition of this fact should lead to a more complete understanding of carnivore biology as a whole through more unified comparative tests. Comparative studies that do not include monophyletic groups for phylogenetically based comparative tests should be reconsidered.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed1999

Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia).

One way to build larger, more comprehensive phylogenies is to combine the vast amount of phylogenetic information already available. We review the two main strategies for accomplishing this (combining raw data versus combining trees), but employ a relatively new variant of the latter: supertree construction. The utility of one supertree technique, matrix representation using parsimony analysis (MRP), is demonstrated by deriving a complete phylogeny for all 271 extant species of the Carnivora from 177 literature sources. Beyond providing a 'consensus' estimate of carnivore phylogeny, the tree also indicates taxa for which the relationships remain controversial (e.g. the red panda; within canids, felids, and hyaenids) or have not been studied in any great detail (e.g. herpestids, viverrids, and intrageneric relationships in the procyonids). Times of divergence throughout the tree were also estimated from 74 literature sources based on both fossil and molecular data. We use the phylogeny to show that some lineages within the Mustelinae and Canidae contain significantly more species than expected for their age, illustrating the tree's utility for studies of macroevolution. It will also provide a useful foundation for comparative and conservational studies involving the carnivores.

Animals↗