Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeTree rooting and recombination
Posted by michaelgaunt on 19 Feb 2014 at 17:37 GMT
The authors believed they had identified robust phylogenetic incongruence between phylogenies. Robust phylogenetic incongruence is strongly compatible with recombination, viz.
"The most striking difference between the S and M segment trees was that phylogroup II (i.e. LQUV and NVAV) were basal in the M segment tree with relatively strong statistical support (Figure 2B) (although it is important to note that we were unable to amplify the M segment sequence from HUPV), while the Soricidae-associated viruses of phylogroup I occupied the basal position in the S segment tree and with much stronger support (Figure 2A). This different phylogenetic pattern was also apparent in the relevant amino acid trees of the N and GPC proteins (Figure S2A–F). Such phylogenetic incongruence is strongly suggestive of reassortment among hantaviruses of phylogroups I and II, and which might have occurred during the evolution of hantaviruses carried by bats and insectivores as these phylogroups are currently only associated with these mammalian species." Guo et al, 2013
The authors need evaluate there assertion against an alternative explanation of a rooting artefact, e.g. mid-point rooting is a common output in tree building programs where an outgroup is not specified. The M tree is rooted with "phylogroup II" and "phylogroup I" is incongruent against the S tree which is rooted with "phylogroup I" and "phylogroup II" is incongruent. If all phylogenies were rooted consistently, e.g. with "phylogroup I" would they then be incongruent? The same argument is true of the amino acid trees in the appendices.
The paper was subject to a student talk at LSHTM's Molecular Virology course, when the matter arose and I promised the class I would raise the issue herein.
RE: Tree rooting and recombination
zhangyongzhen replied to michaelgaunt on 06 Mar 2014 at 02:59 GMT
Dear Dr Michael Gaunt
Thank you for your comments. In our paper, we provided the trees estimated by three methods (BEAST (MCC), Bayesian, and ML methods). Because the MCC tree is automatically rooted on the assumption of a molecular clock, it enables the determination of which viral lineage is most likely to be basal. Accordingly, the basal lineages estimated by the MCC trees were used as an outgroup to root the phylogenetic trees inferred under the Bayesian and ML phylogenetic analyses in our study. In the rooted trees estimated by the BEAST software, phylogroup I and II occupied the basal position in the S and M trees, respectively. In addition, we also used the mid-point rooting when these trees were constructed. The basal lineages estimated by the mid-point rooting were consistent with those in the MCC trees based on the S and M segment sequences. Finally, because only the M segment sequences from Longquan virus are available, further efforts are needed to confirm whether other bat-borne hantaviruses still occupy the basal position in the M tree on a larger sample of bats.
With best wishes,
Yong-Zhen Zhang