Warnow, T. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2018

Benchmarking Statistical Multiple Sequence Alignment

The estimation of multiple sequence alignments of protein sequences is a basic step in many bioinformatics pipelines, including protein structure prediction, protein family identification, and phylogeny estimation. Statistical co-estimation of alignments and trees under stochastic models of sequence evolution has long been considered the most rigorous technique for estimating alignments and trees, but little is known about the accuracy of such methods on biological benchmarks. We report the results of an extensive study evaluating the most popular protein alignment methods as well as the statistical co-estimation method BAli-Phy on 1192 protein data sets from established benchmarks as well as on 120 simulated data sets. Our study (which used more than 230 CPU years for the BAli-Phy analyses alone) shows that BAli-Phy is dramatically more accurate than the other alignment methods on the simulated data sets, but is among the least accurate on the biological benchmarks. There are several potential causes for this discordance, including model misspecification, errors in the reference alignments, and conflicts between structural alignment and evolutionary alignments; future research is needed to understand the most likely explanation for our observations. multiple sequence alignment, BAli-Phy, protein sequences, structural alignment, homology

bioinformatics↗

bioRxiv2017

To include or not to include: The impact of gene filtering on species tree estimation methods

Species tree estimation from loci sampled from multiple genomes is now common, but is challenged by the heterogeneity across the genome due to multiple processes, such as gene duplication and loss, horizontal gene transfer, and incomplete lineage sorting. Although methods for estimating species trees have been developed that address gene tree heterogeneity due to incomplete lineage sorting, many of these methods operate by combining estimated gene trees and are hence vulnerable to gene tree quality. There is also the added concern that missing data, which is frequently encountered in genome-scale datasets, will impact species tree estimation.\n\nOur study addresses the impact of gene filtering on species trees inferred from multi-gene datasets. We address these questions using a large and heterogeneous collection of simulated datasets both with and without missing data. We compare several established coalescent-based methods (ASTRAL, ASTRID, MP-EST, and SVDquartets within PAUP*) as well as unpartitioned concatenation using maximum likelihood (RAxML).\n\nOur study shows that gene tree error and missing data impact all methods (and some methods degrade more than others), but the degree of incomplete lineage sorting and gene tree estimation error impacts the absolute and relative performance of methods as well as their response to gene filtering strategies. We find that filtering genes based on the degree of missing data is either neutral or else reduces the accuracy of all five methods examined, and so is not recommended. Filtering genes based on gene tree estimation error shows somewhat different trends. Under low levels of incomplete lineage sorting, removing genes with high gene tree estimation error can improve the accuracy of summary methods, but only if not too many genes are removed. Otherwise, filtering genes tends to increase error, especially under high levels of incomplete lineage sorting. Hence, while filtering genes based on missing data is not recommended, there are conditions under which removing high error gene trees can improve species tree estimation. This study provides insights into prior studies and suggests approaches for analyzing phylogenomic datasets.

evolutionary biology↗