Nicolas GaltierPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Gene flow and incomplete lineage sorting are two distinct sources of phylogenetic conflict, i.e., gene trees that differ in topology from each other and from the species tree. Distinguishing between the two processes is a key objective of current evolutionary genomics. This is most often pursued via the so-called ABBA-BABA type of method, which relies on a prediction of symmetry of gene tree discordance made by the incomplete lineage sorting hypothesis. Gene flow, however, need not be asymmetric, and when it is not, ABBA-BABA approaches do not properly measure the prevalence of gene flow. I introduce Aphid, an approximate maximum-likelihood method aimed at quantifying the sources of phylogenetic conflict via topology and branch length analysis of three-species gene trees. Aphid draws information from the fact that gene trees affected by gene flow tend to have shorter branches, and gene trees affected by incomplete lineage sorting longer branches, than the average gene tree. Accounting for the among-loci variance in mutation rate and gene flow time, Aphid returns estimates of the speciation times and ancestral effective population size, and a posterior assessment of the contribution of gene flow and incomplete lineage sorting to the conflict. Simulations suggest that Aphid is reasonably robust to a wide range of conditions. Analysis of coding and non-coding data in primates illustrates the potential of the approach and reveals that a substantial fraction of the human/chimpanzee/gorilla phylogenetic conflict is due to ancient gene flow. Aphid also predicts older speciation times and a smaller estimated effective population size in this group, compared to existing analyses assuming no gene flow.</p>
speciation, coalescence, ABBA-BABA, effective population size, apes
Anton Suvorov [antony.suvorov@med.unc.edu], Laura Kubatko [lkubatko@stat.osu.edu], Asger Hobolth [asger@math.au.dk], ZIheng Yang [z.yang@ucl.ac.uk], Konrad Lohse [konrad.lohse@ed.ac.uk], Simon Martin [Simon.Martin@ed.ac.uk], David Posada [dposada@uvigo.es] suggested: Sorry, but I have not worked on these topics for many years now (and I am about to start vacation anyway). Maybe Tandy Warnow or Matthew Hahn... Best, D, John Wakeley [wakeley@fas.harvard.edu] suggested: Miriam Miyagi [m_miyagi@g.harvard.edu], Richard Durbin suggested: Nick Patterson <nickp@broadinstitute.org>
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Math Comp Biol. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
