SCIENCE@home

How Well Can We Detect Lineage-Specific Diversification-Rate Shifts? A Simulation Study of Sequential AIC Methods

M. R. May,B. R. Moore

Published 2016 in Systematic Biology

ABSTRACT

Evolutionary biologists have long been fascinated by the extreme differences in species numbers across branches of the Tree of Life. This has motivated the development of statistical methods for detecting shifts in the rate of lineage diversification across the branches of phylogenic trees. One of the most frequently used methods, MEDUSA, explores a set of diversification-rate models, where each model assigns branches of the phylogeny to a set of diversification-rate categories. Each model is first fit to the data, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) is then used to identify the optimal diversification model. Surprisingly, the statistical behavior of this popular method is uncharacterized, which is a concern in light of: (1) the poor performance of the AIC as a means of choosing among models in other phylogenetic contexts; (2) the ad hoc algorithm used to visit diversification models, and; (3) errors that we reveal in the likelihood function used to fit diversification models to the phylogenetic data. Here, we perform an extensive simulation study demonstrating that MEDUSA (1) has a high false-discovery rate (on average, spurious diversification-rate shifts are identified ≈30% of the time), and (2) provides biased estimates of diversification-rate parameters. Understanding the statistical behavior of MEDUSA is critical both to empirical researchers—in order to clarify whether these methods can make reliable inferences from empirical datasets—and to theoretical biologists—in order to clarify the specific problems that need to be solved in order to develop more reliable approaches for detecting shifts in the rate of lineage diversification. [Akaike information criterion; extinction; lineage-specific diversification rates; phylogenetic model selection; speciation.]

PUBLICATION RECORD

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CLAIMS

  • No claims are published for this paper.

CONCEPTS

  • No concepts are published for this paper.

REFERENCES

Showing 1-36 of 36 references · Page 1 of 1

CITED BY

Showing 1-46 of 46 citing papers · Page 1 of 1