Bayesian-Weighted Triplet and Quartet Methods for Species Tree Inference

Weighted ASTRID: fast and accurate species trees from weighted internode distances

BACKGROUND

Species tree estimation is a basic step in many biological research projects, but is complicated by the fact that gene trees can differ from the species tree due to processes such as incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), gene duplication and loss (GDL), and horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which can cause different regions within the genome to have different evolutionary histories (i.e., "gene tree heterogeneity"). One approach to estimating species trees in the presence of gene tree heterogeneity resulting from ILS operates by computing trees on each genomic region (i.e., computing "gene trees") and then using these gene trees to define a matrix of average internode distances, where the internode distance in a tree T between two species x and y is the number of nodes in T between the leaves corresponding to x and y. Given such a matrix, a tree can then be computed using methods such as neighbor joining. Methods such as ASTRID and NJst (which use this basic approach) are provably statistically consistent, very fast (low degree polynomial time) and have had high accuracy under many conditions that makes them competitive with other popular species tree estimation methods. In this study, inspired by the very recent work of weighted ASTRAL, we present weighted ASTRID, a variant of ASTRID that takes the branch uncertainty on the gene trees into account in the internode distance.

RESULTS

Our experimental study evaluating weighted ASTRID typically shows improvements in accuracy compared to the original (unweighted) ASTRID, and shows competitive accuracy against weighted ASTRAL, the state of the art. Our re-implementation of ASTRID also improves the runtime, with marked improvements on large datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

Weighted ASTRID is a new and very fast method for species tree estimation that typically improves upon ASTRID and has comparable accuracy to weighted ASTRAL, while remaining much faster. Weighted ASTRID is available at https://github.com/RuneBlaze/internode .

Weighting by Gene Tree Uncertainty Improves Accuracy of Quartet-based Species Trees

Phylogenomic analyses routinely estimate species trees using methods that account for gene tree discordance. However, the most scalable species tree inference methods, which summarize independently inferred gene trees to obtain a species tree, are sensitive to hard-to-avoid errors introduced in the gene tree estimation step. This dilemma has created much debate on the merits of concatenation versus summary methods and practical obstacles to using summary methods more widely and to the exclusion of concatenation. The most successful attempt at making summary methods resilient to noisy gene trees has been contracting low support branches from the gene trees. Unfortunately, this approach requires arbitrary thresholds and poses new challenges. Here, we introduce threshold-free weighting schemes for the quartet-based species tree inference, the metric used in the popular method ASTRAL. By reducing the impact of quartets with low support or long terminal branches (or both), weighting provides stronger theoretical guarantees and better empirical performance than the unweighted ASTRAL. Our simulations show that weighting improves accuracy across many conditions and reduces the gap with concatenation in conditions with low gene tree discordance and high noise. On empirical data, weighting improves congruence with concatenation and increases support. Together, our results show that weighting, enabled by a new optimization algorithm we introduce, improves the utility of summary methods and can reduce the incongruence often observed across analytical pipelines.

Re-evaluating Deep Neural Networks for Phylogeny Estimation: The Issue of Taxon Sampling

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have been recently proposed for quartet tree phylogeny estimation. Here, we present a study evaluating recently trained DNNs in comparison to a collection of standard phylogeny estimation methods on a heterogeneous collection of datasets simulated under the same models that were used to train the DNNs, and also under similar conditions but with higher rates of evolution. Our study shows that using DNNs with quartet amalgamation is less accurate than several standard phylogeny estimation methods we explore (e.g., maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony). We further find that simple standard phylogeny estimation methods match or improve on DNNs for quartet accuracy, especially, but not exclusively, when used in a global manner (i.e., the tree on the full dataset is computed and then the induced quartet trees are extracted from the full tree). Thus, our study provides evidence that a major challenge impacting the utility of current DNNs for phylogeny estimation is their restriction to estimating quartet trees that must subsequently be combined into a tree on the full dataset. In contrast, global methods (i.e., those that estimate trees from the full set of sequences) are able to benefit from taxon sampling, and hence have higher accuracy on large datasets.

Multispecies Coalescent: Theory and Applications in Phylogenetics

Species tree estimation is a basic part of many biological research projects, ranging from answering basic evolutionary questions (e.g., how did a group of species adapt to their environments?) to addressing questions in functional biology. Yet, species tree estimation is very challenging, due to processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, gene duplication and loss, horizontal gene transfer, and hybridization, which can make gene trees differ from each other and from the overall evolutionary history of the species. Over the last 10–20 years, there has been tremendous growth in methods and mathematical theory for estimating species trees and phylogenetic networks, and some of these methods are now in wide use. In this survey, we provide an overview of the current state of the art, identify the limitations of existing methods and theory, and propose additional research problems and directions.