Skip Navigation



MBE Advance Access published online on February 26, 2009

Molecular Biology and Evolution, doi:10.1093/molbev/msp036
This Article
Right arrow Advance Access manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/5/1171    most recent
msp036v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Inagaki, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Hashimoto, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Inagaki, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Hashimoto, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Research Article

Gene sampling can bias multi-gene phylogenetic inferences: the relationship between red algae and green plants as a case study

Yuji Inagaki1,2,*, Yoshihiro Nakajima3, Mitsuhisa Sato1,3, Miako Sakaguchi2 and Tetsuo Hashimoto1,2

1 Center for Computational Sciences
2 Institute for Biological Sciences
3 Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

* To whom corresponding addressed to: YI, +81 29 853 6483, yuji{at}ccs.tsukuba.ac.jp.

Received for publication September 15, 2008. Revision received January 30, 2009. Accepted for publication February 17, 2009.

The monophyly of Plantae including glaucophytes, red algae, and green plants (green algae plus land plants) has been recovered in recent phylogenetic analyses of large multi-gene data sets (e.g., those including >30,000 amino acid (aa) positions). On the other hand, Plantae monophyly has not been stably reconstructed in inferences from multi-gene data sets with fewer than 10,000 aa positions. An analysis of 5,216 aa positions in Nozaki et al. (2007) strongly rejected the monophyly of Plantae, while Hackett et al. (2007) robustly recovered the Plantae clade in an analysis of 6,735 aa positions. We suspected that the significant incongruity observed between the two studies was attributable to a bias generally overlooked in multi-gene phylogenetic estimation, rather than data size, taxon sampling or methods for tree reconstruction. Although glaucophytes were excluded from our analyses due to a shortage of sequence data, we found that the recovery of a sister-group relationship between red algae and green plants primarily depends on gene sampling in phylogenetic inferences from <10,000 aa positions. Phylogenetic analyses of data sets with fewer than 10,000 aa positions, which can be prepared without large-scale sequencing (e.g., expressed sequence tag analyses), are practical in challenging various unresolved issues in eukaryotic evolution. However, our results indicate that severe biases can arise from gene sampling in multi-gene inferences from <10,000 aa positions. We also address the validity of fast-evolving gene exclusion in multi-gene phylogenetic analyses, in light of this gene sampling bias.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
P. Deschamps and D. Moreira
Signal Conflicts in the Phylogeny of the Primary Photosynthetic Eukaryotes
Mol. Biol. Evol., December 1, 2009; 26(12): 2745 - 2753.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.