Advertisement

Detecting Phenotypic Selection by Approximate Bayesian Computation in Phylogenetic Comparative Methods

  • Nobuyuki KutsukakeEmail author
  • Hideki Innan

Abstract

This chapter discusses the fundamental structure and advantages of the approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) algorithm in phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs). ABC estimates unknown parameters as follows: (1) simulated data are generated under a suite of parameters randomly chosen from their prior distributions; (2) the simulated data are compared with empirical data; (3) parameters are accepted when the distance between the simulated and empirical data is small; and (4) by repeating steps (1)–(3), posterior distributions of parameters will be gained. Because ABC does not necessitate mathematical expression or analytic solution of a likelihood function, ABC is particularly useful when a maximum-likelihood (ML) estimation is difficult to conduct (a common situation when testing complex evolutionary models and/or models with many parameters in PCMs). As an application, we analysed trait evolution in which a specific species exhibits an extraordinary trait value relative to others. The ABC approach detected the occurrence of branch-specific directional selection and estimated ancestral states of internal nodes. As computational power increases, such likelihood-free approaches will become increasingly useful for PCMs, particularly for testing complex evolutionary models that deviate from the standard models based on the Brownian motion.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by PRESTO, JST. We thank Nanako Shigesada and Hirohisa Kishino for discussion and encouragement, Ai Kawamori and Tomohiro Harano for discussion and helpful comments on the draft, and Hirokazu Toju for providing phylogeny data. We are grateful for valuable comments and suggestions by László Zsolt Garamszegi and two reviewers.

References

  1. Beaumont MA (2010) Approximate Bayesian computation in evolution and ecology. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaumont MA, Zhang W, Balding DJ (2002) Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162:2025–2035PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertorelle G, Benazzo A, Mona S (2010) ABC as a flexible framework to estimate demography over space and time: some cons, many pros. Mol Ecol 19:2609–2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokma F (2010) Time, species, and separating their effects on trait variance in clades. Syst Biol 59:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler MA, King AA (2004) Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am Nat 164:683–695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csillery K, Blum MG, Gaggiotti OE, François O (2010) Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) in practice. Trends Ecol Evol 25:410–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Estes S, Arnold SJ (2007) Resolving the paradox of stasis: models with stabilizing selection explain evolutionary divergence on all timescales. Am Nat 169:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP (2010) Effects of sample size and intraspecific variation in phylogenetic comparative studies: a meta-analytic review. Biol Rev 85:797–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2013) Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gingerich PD (2009) Rate of evolution. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:657–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen TF (1997) Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harmon LJ, Losos JB, Jonathan Davies T, Gillespie RG, Gittleman JL et al (2010) Early bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data. Evolution 64:2385–2396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kutsukake N, Innan H (2013) Simulation-based likelihood approach for evolutionary models of phenotypic traits on phylogeny. Evolution 67:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leuenberger C, Wegmann D (2010) Bayesian computation and model selection without likelihoods. Genetics 184:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li W-H (1997) Molecular evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  17. Losos JB (2011) Seeing the forest for the trees: the limitations of phylogenies in comparative biology. Am Nat 177:709–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marjoram P, Tavare S (2006) Modern computational approaches for analysing molecular genetic variation data. Nat Genet Rev 7:759–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marjoram P, Molitor J, Plagnol V, Tavare S (2003) Markov chain Monte Carlo without likelihoods. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:15324–15328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Meara BC, Ane CM, Sanderson MJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution in different groups using likelihood. Evolution 60:922–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pagel M (1997) Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies. Zool Scr 26:331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Purvis A (2004) Evolution: how do characters evolve? Nature 432:166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabosky DL (2009) Heritability of extinction rates links diversification patterns in molecular phylogenies and fossils. Syst Biol 58:629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ricklefs RE (2004) Cladogenesis and morphological diversification in passerine birds. Nature 430:338–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ricklefs RE (2006) Time, species, and the generation of trait variance in clades. Syst Biol 55:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robert CP, Cornuet JM, Marin JM, Pillai NS (2011) Lack of confidence in approximate Bayesian computation model choice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:15112–15117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schulter D, Price T, Mooers AO, Ludwig D (1997) Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slater GJ, Harmon LJ, Wegmann D, Joyce P, Revell LJ, Alfaro ME (2012) Fitting models of continuous trait evolution to incompletely sampled comparative data using approximate Bayesian computation. Evolution 66:752–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tavare S, Balding DJ, Griffiths RC, Donnelly P (1997) Inferring coalescence times from DNA sequence data. Genetics 145:505–518PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Toju H, Sota T (2006) Phylogeography and the geographic cline in the armament of a seed-predatory weevil: effects of historical events vs. natural selection from the host plant. Mol Ecol 15:4161–4173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Venditti C, Meade A, Pagel M (2011) Multiple routes to mammalian diversity. Nature 479:393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang Z (2006) Computational molecular evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary Studies of BiosystemsThe Graduate University for Advanced StudiesHayamaJapan
  2. 2.PRESTOJapan Science and Technology AgencySaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations