Upload
graeme-lloyd
View
232
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
A new non-minimal algorithm for dating phylogenies of fossil taxa
Graeme T. Lloyd, Matt Friedman and Mark A. Bell
Molecular phylogeny
(dos Reis et al. 2012)
Palaeontological phylogeny
(Motani 1999)
But what about extinct clades?
Branch lengths in palaeontology
“Ghost” diversity
(Weishampel et Jianu 2000)
Raw
Raw + “ghosts”
Raw
Raw + “ghosts”
(Brusatte et al. 2011)
Extinction survival
Aphylogenetic survival:
1/3 = 33%
Phylogenetic survival:
4/6 = 67%
(Modesto et al. 2001)
Evolutionary rates
(Lloyd et al. 2012)
Phylogenetic covariance matrix
15 1 0 0 0 0
1 15 0 0 0 0
0 0 15 14 7 7
0 0 14 15 7 7
0 0 7 7 15 9
0 0 7 7 9 15
(Slide pilfered from Chris Organ)
A
B
D
A B D
E
F
G
E F G
Evolutionary models
(Slides pilfered from Graham Slater)
Brownian Motion
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
Early Burst
Late Burst
Trend
A brief history of fossil-onlytree dating
Traditional approach
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
τ4
τ2
τ1
τ3
= max( , ) = max(τ8,τ7)
(Smith 1994)
Traditional approach
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
τ4
τ2
τ1
τ3
Implied phylogeny
(Smith 1994)
Add k solution
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
τ4
τ2
τ1
τ3
= max( , ) + k
k
(Derstler 1982; Forey 1988)
Branch sharing solution
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
(Ruta et al. 2006; Brusatte et al. 2008)
root age
τ7
τ6
τ5
Traditional approach first Share time with preceding(non-zero length) branch
A novel approach
Hedman approach
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
τ4
τ2
τ1
τ3
= ƒ( )
(Hedman 2010)
Hedman approach
Age (Ma)Minimumt0
Maximum
Freq
uenc
y
Hedman approach
τ7
τ8
τ6
τ5
τ4
τ2
τ1
τ3
= ƒ( )
(Hedman 2010)
= ƒ( )
Hedman approach
(Lloyd et al. 2008)
Only 135 ‘unique’ nodes(one third of 416 total)
Hedman approach
(Lloyd et al. 2008)
Only 135 ‘unique’ nodes(one third of 416 total)
What about the other two thirds?
Modified Hedman approach
Modified Hedman approach
Modified Hedman approach
12
3
Modified Hedman approach
12
3
Min Max
Modified Hedman approach
1 2 3
12
3
Min Max
Modified Hedman approach
12
3
Molecular versus fossil-only dating in placental mammals
Placental mammals
• Informal supertree• 48 source trees• 452 OTUs (cladistically
placed)• Computation time: 6m 57s
Fossil vs. Molecular dates
PaleogeneCretaceous
Pale
ogen
eCr
etac
eous
Fossi
l age > Molecu
lar age
Molecular a
ge > Fo
ssil age
Traditional vs. Molecular
Trad
ition
al a
ppro
ach
Meredith et al. 2011
1:1 RSS31269.3
PaleogeneCretaceous
Pale
ogen
eCr
etac
eous
PaleogeneCretaceous
Pale
ogen
eCr
etac
eous
New approach vs. Molecular
Mod
ified
Hed
man
app
roac
h
Meredith et al. 2011
1:1 RSS12340.4
1:1 RSS31269.3
Approach comparison
Meredithet al.2011
dos Reiset al.2012
Traditionalapproach
ModifiedHedmanapproach
Approach comparison
Meredithet al.2011
Traditionalapproach
ModifiedHedmanapproach
1:1 RSS2210.1
1:1 RSS10433.7
1:1 RSS5496.0
dos Reiset al.2012
Approach comparison
Meredithet al.2011
Traditionalapproach
ModifiedHedmanapproach
1:1 RSS1837.6
1:1 RSS1514.9
1:1 RSS
4311.1
dos Reiset al.2012
Conclusions
• Novel fossil-only tree dating approach
Conclusions
• Novel fossil-only tree dating approach• Mimics molecular approach (distribution)
Conclusions
• Novel fossil-only tree dating approach• Mimics molecular approach (distribution)• Helps close molecule-fossil gap
Conclusions
• Novel fossil-only tree dating approach• Mimics molecular approach (distribution)• Helps close molecule-fossil gap• Implications for a wide range of topics, e.g.:• Phylogenetic diversity estimates• Extinction/Survival %s• Rates of evolution• Trait models• Better calibration distributions