Advertisement

Hidden Markov Models for Studying the Evolution of Binary Morphological Characters

  • Jeremy M. BeaulieuEmail author
  • Brian C. O’Meara

Abstract

Biologists now have the capability of building large phylogenetic trees consisting of tens of thousands of species, from which important comparative questions can be addressed. However, to the extent that biologists have applied these large trees to comparative data, it is clear that current methods, such as those that deal with the evolution of binary morphological characters, make unrealistic assumptions about how these characters are modeled. As phylogenies increase both in size and scope, it is likely that the lability of a binary character will differ significantly among lineages. In this chapter, we describe how a new generalized model, which we refer to as the “hidden rates model” (HRM), can be used to identify different rates of evolution in a discrete binary character along different branches of a phylogeny. The HRM is part of a class of models that are more broadly known as Hidden Markov models because it presupposes that unobserved “hidden” rate classes underlie each observed state and that each rate class represents potentially different transition rates to and from these observed states. As we discuss, the recognition and accommodation of this heterogeneity can provide a robust picture of binary character evolution.

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions, with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. National Bureau of Standards, Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaulieu JM, Donoghue MJ (2013) Fruit evolution and diversification in campanulid angiosperms. Evolution 67:3132–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaulieu JM, Jhwueng D-C, Boettiger C, O’Meara BC (2012) Modeling stabilizing selection: expanding the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model of adaptive evolution. Evolution 66:2369–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaulieu JM, O’Meara BC, Donoghue MJ (2013a) Identifying hidden rate changes in the evolution of a binary morphological character: the evolution of plant habit in campanulid angiosperms. Syst Biol 62:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaulieu JM, Tank DC, Donoghue MJ (2013b) A Southern Hemisphere origin for campanulid angiosperms and traces of the break-up of Gondwana. BMC Evol Biol 13:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell ET (1934) Exponential polynomials. Ann Math 35:258–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bremer K, Gustafsson MHG (1997) East Gondwana ancestry of the sunflower alliance of families. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9188–9190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler MA, King AA (2004) Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am Nat 164:683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlquist S (1974) Island biology. Columbia University Press, New York and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chase MW, Soltis DE, Olmstead RG, Morgan D, Les DH, Mishler BD et al (1993) Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann Mo Bot Gard 80:528–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronquist A (1968) The evolution and classification of flowering plants. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastman JM, Alfaro ME, Joyce P, Hipp AL, Harmon LJ (2011) A novel comparative method for identifying shifts in the rate of character evolution on trees. Evolution 65:3578–3589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felsenstein J (1981) A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility. Biol J Linn Soc 16:183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felsenstein J (2005) Using the quantitative genetic threshold model for inferences between and within species. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:1427–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Felsenstein J (2012) A comparative method for both discrete and continuous characters using the threshold method. Am Nat 179:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitch WM, Markowitz E (1970) An improved method for determining codon variability and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem Genet 4:579–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FitzJohn RG, Maddison WP, Otto SP (2009) Estimating trait-dependent speciation and extinction rates from incompletely resolved phylogenies. Syst Biol 58:595–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galtier N (2001) A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol Biol Evol 18:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groover AT (2005) What genes make a tree a tree? Trends Plant Sci 10:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holder MT, Lewis PO, Swofford DL (2010) The Akaike Information Criterion will not choose the no common mechanism model. Syst Biol 59:477–485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huelsenbeck JP, Larget B, Alfaro ME (2004) Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Mol Biol Evol 21:1123–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingram T, Mahler DL (2012) SURFACE: detecting convergent evolution from comparative data by fitting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models with stepwise Akaike Information Criterion. Methods Ecol Evol 4:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lens F, Smets E, Melzer S (2012) Stem anatomy supports Arabidopsis thaliana as a model for insular woodiness. New Phytol 193:12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maddison WP (1993) Missing data versus missing characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 42:576–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddison WP, Midford PE, Otto SP (2007) Estimating a binary character’s effect on speciation and extinction. Syst Biol 56:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marazzi B, Ane C, Simon MF, Delgado-Salinas A, Luckow M, Sanderson MJ (2012) Locating evolutionary precursors on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 66:3918–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Meara BC, Ane C, Sanderson MJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution. Evolution 60:922–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Meara BC (2007) Estimating different rates of gene loss on a tree. Genetics 117:1415–1416Google Scholar
  30. Pagel M (1994) Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc R Soc B 255:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pagel M, Meade A (2004) A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst Biol 53:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pagel M, Meade A (2006) Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Am Nat 167(808):825Google Scholar
  33. Penny D, McCormish BJ, Charleston MA, Hendy MD (2001) Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J Mol Evol 53:711–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Revell LJ (2008) On the analysis of evolutionary change along single branches in a phylogeny. Am Nat 172:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Revell LJ (2014) Ancestral character estimation under the threshold model from quantitative genetics. Evolution 68:743–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith SA, Beaulieu JM, Stamatakis A, Donoghue MJ (2011) Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. Am J Bot 98:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas GH, Freckleton RP, Szekely T (2006) Comparative analyses of the influence of developmental mode on phenotypic diversification rates in shorebirds. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1619–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuffley C, Steel M (1997) Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull Math Biol 59:581–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright S (1934) An analysis of variability in the number of digits in an inbred strain of guinea pigs. Genetics 19:506–536PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Z (1994) Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol 39:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Z, Kumar S, Nei M (1995) A new method of inference of ancestral nucleotide and amino acid sequences. Genetics 141:1641–1650PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Biological and Mathematical SynthesisUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations