- Order:
- Duration: 6:42
- Published: 30 Jul 2010
- Uploaded: 06 Aug 2011
- Author: AdventOfComplexLife
Taxonomy, the classification, identification, and naming of organisms, is richly informed by phylogenetics, but remains methodologically and logically distinct. The fields of phylogenetics and taxonomy overlap in the science of phylogenetic systematics — one methodology, cladism (also cladistics) shared derived characters (synapomorphies) used to create ancestor-descendant trees (cladograms) and delimit taxa (clades). In biological systematics as a whole, phylogenetic analyses have become essential in researching the evolutionary tree of life.
The problem posed by phylogenetics is that genetic data are only available for living taxa, and the fossil records (osteometric data) contains less data and more-ambiguous morphological characters. A phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed to have occurred.
Cladistics is the current method of choice to infer phylogenetic trees. The most commonly-used methods to infer phylogenies include parsimony, maximum likelihood, and MCMC-based Bayesian inference. Phenetics, popular in the mid-20th century but now largely obsolete, uses distance matrix-based methods to construct trees based on overall similarity, which is often assumed to approximate phylogenetic relationships. All methods depend upon an implicit or explicit mathematical model describing the evolution of characters observed in the species included, and are usually used for molecular phylogeny, wherein the characters are aligned nucleotide or amino acid sequences.
The overall goal of National Science Foundation's Assembling the Tree of Life activity (AToL) is to resolve evolutionary relationships for large groups of organisms throughout the history of life, with the research often involving large teams working across institutions and disciplines. Investigators are typically supported for projects in data acquisition, analysis, algorithm development and dissemination in computational phylogenetics and phyloinformatics. For example, RedToL aims at reconstructing the Red Algal Tree of Life.
During the late 19th century, Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory, or biogenetic law, was widely accepted. This theory was often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", i.e. the development of an organism exactly mirrors the evolutionary development of the species. Haeckel's early version of this hypothesis [that the embryo mirrors adult evolutionary ancestors] has since been rejected, and the hypothesis amended as the embryo's development mirroring embryos of its evolutionary ancestors. He was accused by five professors of falsifying his images of embryos (See Ernst Haeckel). Most modern biologists recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explain them using evolutionary theory, or view them as supporting evidence for that theory. Donald I. Williamson suggested that larvae and embryos represented adults in other taxa that have been transferred by hybridization (the larval transfer theory). However, Williamson's views do not represent mainstream thought in molecular biology, and there is a significant body of evidence against the larval transfer theory.
Horizontal gene transfer has complicated the determination of phylogenies of organisms, and inconsistencies in phylogeny have been reported among specific groups of organisms depending on the genes used to construct evolutionary trees.
Carl Woese came up with the three-domain theory of life (eubacteria, archaea and eukaryota) based on his discovery that the genes encoding ribosomal RNA are ancient and distributed over all lineages of life with little or no horizontal gene transfer. Therefore, rRNAs are commonly recommended as molecular clocks for reconstructing phylogenies.
This has been particularly useful for the phylogeny of microorganisms, to which the species concept does not apply and which are too morphologically simple to be classified based on phenotypic traits.
This may be partly due to the breaking up of long branches. It has been argued that this is an important reason to incorporate data from fossils into phylogenies where possible. Of course, phylogenetic data that include fossil taxa are generally based on morphology, rather than DNA data. Using simulations, Derrick Zwickl and David Hillis found that increasing taxon sampling in phylogenetic inference has a positive effect on the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses.
Another important factor that affects the accuracy of tree reconstruction is whether the data analyzed actually contain a useful phylogenetic signal, a term that is used generally to denote whether related organisms tend to resemble each other with respect to their genetic material or phenotypic traits. Ultimately, however, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the "true" relationships among the taxa being examined are already known. The best result an empirical systematist can hope to attain is a tree with branches well-supported by the available evidence.
Molecular phylogenies can reveal rates of diversification, but in order to track rates of origination, extinction and patterns in diversification, fossil data must be incorporated. Molecular techniques assume a constant rate of diversification, which is rarely likely to be true; in some (but by no means all) cases, the assumptions inherent in interpreting the fossil record (e.g. a complete and unbiased record) are closer to being true than the assumption of a constant rate, making fossil insights more accurate than molecular reconstructions. Unfortunately the only objective way to determine convergence is by the construction of a tree – a somewhat circular method. Even so, weighting homoplasious characters does indeed lead to better-supported trees.
== References ==
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.