Advertisement

Taxonomic Supertree Construction with Incertae sedis Taxa

  • Benjamin D. Redelings
  • Mark T. HolderEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Computational Biology book series (COBO, volume 29)

Abstract

A supertree method is a form of meta-analysis. It combines phylogenetic tree estimates, which typically include only a subset of the species of interest, into a single tree that includes every species found in any input tree. These methods are usually applied to phylogenetic estimates that only have taxonomic labels at their leaves. Taxonomies are another source of information about phylogenetic relationships. They usually convey names for groups of species in addition to species names. If a taxonomy places every species, then its phylogenetic information can be fully expressed as a tree. Such a taxonomy could easily serve as one of the inputs to a supertree method. However, most taxonomies contain incertae sedis taxa, which are species or groups of species that have an uncertain placement within the taxonomic hierarchy. Here, we review some principles of building trees from splits and describe a supertree method that is able to handle incertae sedis taxa without losing taxon names.

Keywords

Supertrees Phylogenetics Incertae sedis taxa Taxonomy Tree of Life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Karen Cranston for comments and the NSF (awards 1759838 and 1208393) for funding. MTH would like to thank Dr. Bernard Moret. Dr. Moret’s leadership of the CIPRES project was crucial to MTH’s early career, and Dr. Moret’s career consistently served as an inspiring example of integrating the discipline of computer science with evolutionary biology.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams III, E.N.: Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst. Biol. 21(4), 390–397 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/21.4.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aho, A.V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T.G., Ullman, J.D.: Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10(3), 405–421 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baum, B.R.: Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41, 3–10 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Queiroz, K.: Nodes, branches, and phylogenetic definitions. Syst. Biol. 62(4), 625–632 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt027. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt027
  5. 5.
    Dress, A., Huber, K.T., Koolen, J., Moulton, V., Spillner, A.: Basic Phylogenetic Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hinchliff, C.E., Smith, S.A., Allman, J.F., Burleigh, J.G., Chaudhary, R., Coghill, L.M., Crandall, K.A., Deng, J., Drew, B.T., Gazis, R., Gude, K., Hibbett, D.S., Katz, L.A., Laughinghouse, H.D., McTavish, E.J., Midford, P.E., Owen, C.L., Ree, R.H., Rees, J.A., Soltis, D.E., Williams, T., Cranston, K.A.: Synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(41), 12,764–12,769 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423041112. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/41/12764.abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hörandl, E., Stuessy, T.F.: Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification. Taxon 59(6), 1641–1653 (2010). http://www.jstor.org/stable/41059863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McTavish, E.J., Hinchliff, C.E., Allman, J.F., Brown, J.W., Cranston, K.A., Holder, M.T., Rees, J.A., Smith, S.A.: Phylesystem: a git-based data store for community-curated phylogenetic estimates. Bioinformatics btv276 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ragan, M.A.: Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1(1), 53–58 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Redelings, B.D., Holder, M.T.: A supertree pipeline for summarizing phylogenetic and taxonomic information for millions of species. PeerJ 5, e3058 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rees, J.A., Cranston, K.: Automated assembly of a reference taxonomy for phylogenetic data synthesis. Biodivers. Data J. 5(5), e12581 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilkinson, M.: Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: reduced adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43(3), 343–368 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations