Jump to content

Phylogenetic inference using transcriptomic data

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lboat (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 21 March 2017 (Added citation and format edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template should only be used in the user namespace.This template should only be used in the user namespace.

WORKING TITLE: Phylogenetic inference using transcriptomic data

In molecular phylogenetics, relationships among individuals are determined using character traits, such as DNA, RNA or protein, which may be obtained using a variety of sequencing technologies. High-throughput next-generation sequencing has become a popular method for generating transcriptomes, which represent a snapshot of gene expression. In eukaryotes, making phylogenetic inferences using RNA is complicated by alternative splicing, which produces multiple transcripts from a single gene. As such, a variety of approaches may be used to improve phylogenetic inference using transcriptomic data obtained from RNA-Seq and processed using computational phylogenetics.

Sequence acquisition

Sequence assembly

RNA-Seq data may be directly assembled into transcripts using sequence assembly. Two main categories of sequence assembly are often distinguished:

  1. de novo transcriptome assembly - especially important when a reference genome is not available for a given species.
  2. Mapping assembly (sometimes genome-guided assembly) - is capable of using a pre-existing reference to guide the assembly of transcripts

Both methods attempt to generate biologically representative isoform-level constructs from RNA-seq data and generally attempt to associate isoforms with a gene-level construct. However, proper identification of gene-level constructs may be complicated by recent duplications, paralogs or gene fusions. These complications may also cause downstream issues during ortholog inference.

Public databases

RNA may also be acquired from public databases, such as GenBank, RefSeq, 1000 Plants (1KP) and 1KITE. Public databases potentially offer curated sequences which can improve inference quality and avoid the computational overhead associated with sequence assembly.

Inferring gene pair orthology/paralogy

Computationally inferring orthologs

Orthology inference requires an assessment of sequence homology, usually via sequence alignment. Phylogenetic analyses and sequence alignment are often considered jointly, as phylogenetic analyses using DNA or RNA require sequence alignment and alignments themselves often represent some hypothesis of homology. As proper ortholog identification is pivotal to phylogenetic analyses, there are a variety of methods available to infer orthologs and paralogs.[1]

These methods are generally distinguished as either graph-based algorithms or tree-based algorithms. Some examples of graph-based methods include InParanoid, MultiParanoid, OrthoMCL, HomoloGene and OMA. Tree-based algorithms include programs such as OrthologID or RIO.[2][1]

A variety of BLAST methods are often used to detect orthologs between species as a part of graph-based algorithms, such as MegaBLAST, BLASTALL, or other forms of all-versus-all BLAST and may be nucleotide- or protein-based alignments[3][4]. RevTrans[5] will even use protein data to inform DNA alignments, which can be beneficial for resolving more distant phylogenetic relationships. These approaches often assume that best-reciprocal-hits passing some threshold metric(s), such as identity, E-value, or percent alignment, represent orthologs and may be confounded by incomplete lineage sorting.

Accessing public orthology data

It is important to note that orthology relationships in public databases typically represent gene-level orthology and do not provide information concerning conserved alternative splice variants.

Databases that contain and/or detect orthologous relationships include:

Multiple sequence alignment

DNA vs RNA vs Protein

It is not uncommon to translate RNA sequence into protein when using transcriptomic data, especially when analyzing highly diverged taxa. [6]

Opportunities and limitations

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • expenses of extensive taxon sampling
  • difficulty in identification of full-length, single-copy transcripts and orthologs
  • potential misassembly of transcripts (especially when duplicates are present)
  • missing data as a product of the transcriptome representing a snapshot of expression or incomplete lineage sorting[7]

Minimizing bias

Bias in estimating phylogenetic relationships can be ameliorated in several ways:

  1. Synonymous substitution rate (Ks value) normalization can account for differences in Ks values between species. However, to avoid complications with saturation and codon usage bias, only select Ks values may be normalized.[8]
  2. The use of UniGenes and single-copy genes can limit difficulties associated with comparing genes derived from duplications or recently diverged gene families. They may also be used to annotate a transcriptome and limit analysis to gene sets that can be unambiguously identified as orthologs.[9]
  3. Gene trees may also be built to infer orthology in non-model species, after which, species trees can be built using the newly derived orthologous gene sets.[10][11]

As such, characterizing gene family evolution is vital for both systematic and functional purposes.[12]

Inferring phylogenetic relationships

Brief Summary

Methods

There are a number of publicly available tools for phylogenetic analysis.


See also

References

  1. ^ a b Salichos, Leonidas; Rokas, Antonis; Fairhead, Cecile (13 April 2011). "Evaluating Ortholog Prediction Algorithms in a Yeast Model Clade". PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e18755. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018755.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ Zmasek, Christian M; Eddy, Sean R (2002). BMC Bioinformatics. 3 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-3-14. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ Barker, M. S.; Vogel, H.; Schranz, M. E. (5 October 2009). "Paleopolyploidy in the Brassicales: Analyses of the Cleome Transcriptome Elucidate the History of Genome Duplications in Arabidopsis and Other Brassicales". Genome Biology and Evolution. 1 (0): 391–399. doi:10.1093/gbe/evp040.
  4. ^ Yang, Xu; Cheng, Yu-Fu; Deng, Cao; Ma, Yan; Wang, Zhi-Wen; Chen, Xue-Hao; Xue, Lin-Bao (2014). "Comparative transcriptome analysis of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and turkey berry (Solanum torvum Sw.): phylogenomics and disease resistance analysis". BMC Genomics. 15 (1): 412. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-412.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  5. ^ Wernersson, R. (1 July 2003). "RevTrans: multiple alignment of coding DNA from aligned amino acid sequences". Nucleic Acids Research. 31 (13): 3537–3539. doi:10.1093/nar/gkg609.
  6. ^ Hörandl, Elvira; Appelhans, Mark (2015). Next-generation sequencing in plant systematics. Koeltz Scientific Books. ISBN 9783874294928.
  7. ^ Wen, Jun; Xiong, Zhiqiang; Nie, Ze-Long; Mao, Likai; Zhu, Yabing; Kan, Xian-Zhao; Ickert-Bond, Stefanie M.; Gerrath, Jean; Zimmer, Elizabeth A.; Fang, Xiao-Dong; Candela, Hector (17 September 2013). "Transcriptome Sequences Resolve Deep Relationships of the Grape Family". PLoS ONE. 8 (9): e74394. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074394.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  8. ^ McKain, M. R.; Wickett, N.; Zhang, Y.; Ayyampalayam, S.; McCombie, W. R.; Chase, M. W.; Pires, J. C.; dePamphilis, C. W.; Leebens-Mack, J. (1 February 2012). "Phylogenomic analysis of transcriptome data elucidates co-occurrence of a paleopolyploid event and the origin of bimodal karyotypes in Agavoideae (Asparagaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 99 (2): 397–406. doi:10.3732/ajb.1100537.
  9. ^ Franssen, Susanne U; Shrestha, Roshan P; Bräutigam, Andrea; Bornberg-Bauer, Erich; Weber, Andreas PM (11 May 2011). "Comprehensive transcriptome analysis of the highly complex Pisum sativum genome using next generation sequencing". BMC Genomics. 12 (1). doi:10.1186/1471-2164-12-227.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  10. ^ Yang, Ya; Moore, Michael J.; Brockington, Samuel F.; Soltis, Douglas E.; Wong, Gane Ka-Shu; Carpenter, Eric J.; Zhang, Yong; Chen, Li; Yan, Zhixiang; Xie, Yinlong; Sage, Rowan F.; Covshoff, Sarah; Hibberd, Julian M.; Nelson, Matthew N.; Smith, Stephen A. (August 2015). "Dissecting Molecular Evolution in the Highly Diverse Plant Clade Caryophyllales Using Transcriptome Sequencing". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 32 (8): 2001–2014. doi:10.1093/molbev/msv081.
  11. ^ Yang, Y.; Smith, S. A. (25 August 2014). "Orthology Inference in Nonmodel Organisms Using Transcriptomes and Low-Coverage Genomes: Improving Accuracy and Matrix Occupancy for Phylogenomics". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 31 (11): 3081–3092. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu245.
  12. ^ Liberles, David A.; Dittmar, Katharina (December 2008). "Characterizing gene family evolution". Biological Procedures Online. 10 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1251/bpo144.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phylogenetic_inference_using_transcriptomic_data&oldid=771431128"