Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWade, Taylor
dc.contributor.authorRangel, L Thiberio
dc.contributor.authorKundu, Soumya
dc.contributor.authorFournier, Gregory P
dc.contributor.authorBansal, Mukul S
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-18T16:06:07Z
dc.date.available2021-10-27T19:53:56Z
dc.date.available2022-01-18T16:06:07Z
dc.date.issued2020-05
dc.date.submitted2019-11
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/133632.2
dc.description.abstract© 2020 Wade et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Almost all standard phylogenetic methods for reconstructing gene trees result in unrooted trees; yet, many of the most useful applications of gene trees require that the gene trees be correctly rooted. As a result, several computational methods have been developed for inferring the root of unrooted gene trees. However, the accuracy of such methods has never been systematically evaluated on prokaryotic gene families, where horizontal gene transfer is often one of the dominant evolutionary events driving gene family evolution. In this work, we address this gap by conducting a thorough comparative evaluation of five different rooting methods using large collections of both simulated and empirical prokaryotic gene trees. Our simulation study is based on 6000 true and reconstructed gene trees on 100 species and characterizes the rooting accuracy of the four methods under 36 different evolutionary conditions and 3 levels of gene tree reconstruction error. The empirical study is based on a large, carefully designed data set of 3098 gene trees from 504 bacterial species (406 Alphaproteobacteria and 98 Cyanobacteria) and reveals insights that supplement those gleaned from the simulation study. Overall, this work provides several valuable insights into the accuracy of the considered methods that will help inform the choice of rooting methods to use when studying microbial gene family evolution. Among other findings, this study identifies parsimonious Duplication-Transfer-Loss (DTL) rooting and Minimal Ancestor Deviation (MAD) rooting as two of the most accurate gene tree rooting methods for prokaryotes and specifies the evolutionary conditions under which these methods are most accurate, demonstrates that DTL rooting is highly sensitive to high evolutionary rates and gene tree error, and that rooting methods based on branch-lengths are generally robust to gene tree reconstruction error.en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)en_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0232950en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourcePLoSen_US
dc.titleAssessing the accuracy of phylogenetic rooting methods on prokaryotic gene familiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
dc.relation.journalPLoS ONEen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2021-09-16T16:22:52Z
dspace.orderedauthorsWade, T; Rangel, LT; Kundu, S; Fournier, GP; Bansal, MSen_US
dspace.date.submission2021-09-16T16:22:53Z
mit.journal.volume15en_US
mit.journal.issue5en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work Neededen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

VersionItemDateSummary

*Selected version