Skip to main content

Keeping Yourself Updated: Bayesian Approaches in Phylogenetic Comparative Methods with a Focus on Markov Chain Models of Discrete Character Evolution

  • Chapter
Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Bayesian inference involves altering our beliefs about the probability of events occurring as we gain more information. It is a sensible and intuitive approach that forms the basis of the kinds of decisions we make in everyday life. In this chapter, we examine how phylogenetic comparative methods are performed within a Bayesian framework, introducing some of the main concepts involved in Bayesian statistics, such as prior and posterior distributions. Many traits of biological and evolutionary interest can be modelled as being categorical, or discretely distributed, and here, we discuss approaches to investigating the evolution of such characters over phylogenetic trees. We focus on Markov chain models of discrete character evolution and how these models can be assessed using maximum-likelihood and Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques of parameter estimation. We demonstrate how this can be used to test functional hypotheses by examining the correlated evolution of different traits, illustrated with examples of sexual selection in primates and cichlid fish. We show how the order of trait evolution can be determined (potentially providing a stronger test of causal hypotheses) and how competing hypotheses can be assessed using Bayes factors. Attractive features of these Bayesian methods are their ability to incorporate uncertainty about the phylogenetic relationships between species and their representation of results as probability distributions rather than point estimates. We argue that Bayesian methods provide a more realistic way of assessing evidence and ultimately a more intellectually satisfying approach to investigating the diversity of life.

The original version of this chapter was revised: Online Practical Material website has been updated. The erratum to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_23

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This way of introducing this topic owes a debt to Ronquist et al. (2009), although here we focus on the inadequacies of our national football team rather than the success of the Swedish ice hockey team.

  2. 2.

    1966.

  3. 3.

    It should be noted that count data, such as clutch size, are also technically discrete yet are not categorical.

  4. 4.

    or patterns if more than one solution is possible.

  5. 5.

    relative to rate at which new lineages form.

  6. 6.

    For more on transition matrices, see Chap. 16 by Beaulieu and O’Meara in this volume.

  7. 7.

    Phylogenetic generalized least squares.

  8. 8.

    http://10ktrees.fas.harvard.edu/

  9. 9.

    See Garamszegi and Mundry Chap. 12, this volume, for an example of how to incorporate phylogenetic uncertainty within an Information Criterion framework.

  10. 10.

    The process described here relates to the Metropolis–Hastings MCMC algorithm. However, other algorithms such as the Gibbs sampler are also available that follow different rules about how they accept new values and explore the posterior distribution.

  11. 11.

    They are a function of the data, model, and distribution of tree used in the analysis, which makes them hard to compare across analyses.

  12. 12.

    An approximation of the marginal likelihood is part of the output of the program used in the practical section that accompanies this chapter.

  13. 13.

    Note that using Bayes factors (and model selection criteria such as AIC), it is possible to find evidence for a null hypothesis, something that is not possible in classical, frequentist statistics where the null hypothesis can only be rejected.

  14. 14.

    http://www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk/BayesTraits.html

  15. 15.

    Four species lack data for one of the traits, which illustrates that these methods can handle missing data; the likelihood is simply integrated over all possible character states in these cases. See also chap. 11 by de Villemereuil and Nakagawa for a discussion of the issues surrounding missing data and how to deal with them.

  16. 16.

    on the scale discussed earlier.

  17. 17.

    It is important to note that while we can falsify causal hypotheses in this way, if we do find evidence for the hypothesized order of trait changes, this does not prove causation but is at least consistent.

  18. 18.

    It is important to point out that the traits in these analyses were created by binarizing what were initially continuously varying characters. While perhaps not an ideal way to treat these characters, the study still provides a neat example of how the order of trait changes can be inferred using Pagel’s method, which is attractive for testing casual, adaptive hypotheses. In cases such as this, the distribution of a continuous character may provide information about whether categorization is justifiable. For example, Holden and Mace (1997) showed that continuous physiological variable lactose digestion capacity (LDC) exhibited a bi-model distribution, therefore making the decision to binarize the trait into high and low LDC populations understandable. Section 10.7 discusses an alternative way to model binary characters that have an underlying continuous distribution.

  19. 19.

    SCM is implemented in the program SIMMAP (http://www.simmap.com/) (Bollback 2006).

  20. 20.

    This is potentially possible in Pagel’s method described above, but would be more complicated and involve many more parameters.

  21. 21.

    rather than just focussing on the rejection of null hypotheses as is the case with classical statistical procedures.

References

  • Arnold C, Matthews LJ, Nunn CL (2010) The 10kTrees website: a new online resource for primate phylogeny. Evol Anthropol 19:114–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu JM, Jhwueng DC, Boettiger C, O’Meara BC (2012) Modeling stabilizing selection: expanding the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model of adaptive evolution. Evolution 66(8):2369–2383. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01619.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bollback JP (2006) SIMMAP: stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics 7(1):88. doi 10.1186/1471-2105-7-88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal S, Straka J, Danforth BN (2009) Comprehensive phylogeny of apid bees reveals the evolutionary origins and antiquity of cleptoparasitism. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006299107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Currie TE, Greenhill SJ, Gray RD, Hasegawa T, Mace R (2010) Rise and fall of political complexity in island south-east Asia and the Pacific. Nature 467(7317):801–804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB, Krebs JR, West SA (2012) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • de Villemereuil P, Wells J, Edwards R, Blomberg S (2012) Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty. BMC Evol Biol 12(1):102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Domb LG, Pagel M (2001) Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410(6825):204–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn M, Greenhill SJ, Levinson SC, Gray RD (2011) Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473(7345):79–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (2005) Using the quantitative genetic threshold model for inferences between and within species. Philos Trans Roy Soc B Biol Sci 360(1459):1427–1434. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (2012) A comparative method for both discrete and continuous characters using the threshold model. Am Nat 179(2):145–156. doi:10.1086/663681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick JL, Montgomerie R, Desjardins JK, Stiver KA, Kolm N, Balshine S (2009) Female promiscuity promotes the evolution of faster sperm in cichlid fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(4):1128–1132. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809990106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Green PJ (1995) Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82(4):711–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin RH, Matthews LJ, Nunn CL (2012) Evolutionary disequilibrium and activity period in primates: a bayesian phylogenetic approach. Am J Phys Anthropol 147(3):409–416. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the mcmcglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33(2):122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbett DS (2004) Trends in morphological evolution in homobasidiomycetes inferred using maximum likelihood: a comparison of binary and multistate approaches. Syst Biol 53(6):889–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holden C, Mace R (1997) Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults. Hum Biol 69(5):605–628

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huelsenbeck JP, Nielsen R, Bollback JP (2003) Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Syst Biol 52(2):131–158. doi:10.1080/10635150390192780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (2003) Detecting correlation between characters in a comparative analysis with uncertain phylogeny. Evolution 57(6):1237–1247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B, Masly JP (2000) Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. Science 288(5475):2349–2350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ives AR, Garland T (2010) Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst Biol 59(1):9–26. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syp074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan FM, Gray RD, Greenhill SJ, Mace R (2009) Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesian societies. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 276(1664):1957–1964. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes Factors. J Am Stat Assoc 90(430):773–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Barker RJ (2009) Bayesian inference: with ecological applications. Elsevier Science, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison WP (1990) A method for testing the correlated evolution of 2 binary characters—are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 44(3):539–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2009) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. 2.71 edn

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara BC, Ane C, Sanderson MJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution using likelihood. Evolution 60(5):922–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Organ CL, Janes DE, Meade A, Pagel M (2009) Genotypic sex determination enabled adaptive radiations of extinct marine reptiles. Nature 461(7262):389–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M (1994a) Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general-method for the comparative-analysis of discrete characters. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 255(1342):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M (1994b) Evolution of conspicuous estrous advertisement in old-world monkeys. Anim Behav 47(6):1333–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401(6756):877–884

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M, Meade A (2005) Bayesian estimation of correlated evolution across cultures: a case study of marriage systems and wealth transfer at marriage. In: Mace R, Holden CJ, Shennan S (eds) Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M, Meade A (2006) Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Am Nat 167(6):808–825

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M, Meade A, Barker D (2004) Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Syst Biol 53(5):673–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M, Venditti C, Meade A (2006) Large punctuational contribution of speciation to evolutionary divergence at the molecular level. Science 314(5796):119–121. doi:10.1126/science.1129647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penny D, McComish BJ, Charleston MA, Hendy MD (2001) Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J Mol Evol 53(6):711–723. doi:10.1007/s002390010258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posada D (2009) Selecting models of evolution. In: Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme AM (eds) The phylogenetic handbook: a practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 345–361

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ronquist F, van der Mark P, Huelsenbeck JP (2009) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using MrBayes. In: Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme AM (eds) The phylogenetic handbook: a practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson MJ (1993) Reversibility in evolution: a maximum-likelihood approach to character gain loss bias in phylogenies. Evolution 47(1):236–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shultz S, Opie C, Atkinson QD (2011) Stepwise evolution of stable sociality in primates. Nature 479(7372):219–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas E. Currie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Glossary

Bayes factors

Bayes factors are a way of testing between different hypotheses in a Bayesian framework. They are calculated as ratios of the marginal likelihoods of different models. The larger the ratio the more support there is for one model over another. The interpretation of Bayes factors is somewhat arbitrary, but rules of thumb exist to use these values to assess the strength of evidence in favour of one hypothesis over another.

Hyperprior

A hyperprior is a prior distribution on the hyperparameter of a prior distribution. In other words instead of the parameters of the distribution being given fixed values, they themselves are drawn from prior distributions. In the program BayesTraits (which is used in the OPM), the hyperparameters of specified distributions are drawn from uniform distributions. For example, a gamma distribution could have its shape and scale parameters drawn from a uniform distribution ranging from 0 to 10. In comparative analyses, we do not always possess relevant biological information that could inform us about what form and values the priors should take therefore hyperpriors are attractive because they allow us to be less restrictive about the values of a given prior distribution.

Marginal Likelihood

The marginal likelihood of a model is its likelihood scaled by the prior probabilities and integrated over all values of the parameters. In the context of phylogenetic comparative analyses this may also involve integrating over all the trees in the sample.

Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)

MCMC is a statistical procedure used in Bayesian analyses to search parameter space and sample values in proportion to their posterior probability in order to arrive at an estimate of the posterior distributions of a model and its parameter values. A number of different criteria can be implemented to govern the way an MCMC searches and samples the posterior distribution. With the Metropolis–Hasting algorithm, parameter values that increase the likelihood are always accepted, while those that lead to a decrease are accepted only with a certain probability. The Gibbs sampler always accepts proposed values but works by drawing new values from the conditional distributions of the parameters (i.e. the distribution of a parameter given the value of other parameters).

Maximum likelihood

In a maximum-likelihood we search for the values of the parameters of a statistical model that give the largest possible value of the likelihood function.

Prior probability and Priors/Prior distribution

In Bayesian statistics, we need to specify our initial belief about the probability of a hypothesis, given the information available at the time. This belief then gets updated when we gain more information (i.e. this is our belief prior to the assessment of new information). In the context of a comparative analysis, we are assessing the parameters of a statistical model, and before running the analysis and examining the data, we have to specify a prior probability distribution of the values these parameters should take given our current understanding. The chapter by Currie and Meade provides some examples of common prior distributions that are used in comparative analyses. See also Hyperprior.

Posterior probability and Posteriors/Posterior distribution

In Bayesian statistics, the posterior probability refers to our belief in a hypothesis after (i.e. posterior to) assessing new information. In the context of a comparative analysis, the results of our analysis give us the posterior probability distribution of values of the parameters of a statistical model. See also Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Currie, T.E., Meade, A. (2014). Keeping Yourself Updated: Bayesian Approaches in Phylogenetic Comparative Methods with a Focus on Markov Chain Models of Discrete Character Evolution. In: Garamszegi, L. (eds) Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics