2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2019.05.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incongruence between gene trees and species trees and phylogenetic signal variation in plastid genes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
133
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(143 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
7
133
3
Order By: Relevance
“…A possible explanation for the incongruence observed in dataset1 could be that Ruhfel et al [3] used only protein coding data of 78 genes from 360 taxa to build their phylogenetic tree. Gene conflicts in plastome-based phylogenies have recently been highlighted as a major cause of incongruence among studies [31,32], and differences in methodology between our study and the study by Ruhfel et al [3] could explain the observed incongruence. The analyses performed here were based on complete plastome data and include non-coding, fast evolving regions.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…A possible explanation for the incongruence observed in dataset1 could be that Ruhfel et al [3] used only protein coding data of 78 genes from 360 taxa to build their phylogenetic tree. Gene conflicts in plastome-based phylogenies have recently been highlighted as a major cause of incongruence among studies [31,32], and differences in methodology between our study and the study by Ruhfel et al [3] could explain the observed incongruence. The analyses performed here were based on complete plastome data and include non-coding, fast evolving regions.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…Because organellar genomic regions are typically analyzed in concatenation (i.e., treated as a single locus), we followed that approach here. However, recent studies have shown that plastid genomes are not free of gene‐tree conflict (e.g., Walker et al., ), suggesting that concatenation approaches may be inappropriate for plastomes, at least in some cases (Gonçalves et al., ). In light of this, multispecies coalescent (MSC) methods have been suggested as an alternative framework for plastome analyses (Gonçalves et al., ), but the appropriateness of this type of approach for plastid data, both theoretically and practically, has not been thoroughly considered.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies have explored gene tree conflicts in plastome-inferred phylogenies and incongruence between gene trees and species trees in plastid genes Gonçalves et al 2019). Gonçalves et al (2019) emphasized the importance of considering variation in phylogenetic signal across plastid genes and the exploration of plastome data to increase accuracy of estimating relationships; they also revealed that phylogenies inferred with multispecies coalescent (MSC) methods are accurate with plastome matrices and should be considered in future phylogenomic investigations. Walker et al (2019) highlighted that most genes are largely uninformative and are unlikely to misguide plant systematics.…”
Section: Phylogenetically Informative Regionsmentioning
confidence: 99%