title: Potential pitfalls of modelling ribosomal RNA data in phylogenetic tree reconstruction: evidence from case studies in the Metazoa.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Failure to account for covariation patterns in helical regions of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes has the potential to misdirect the estimation of the phylogenetic signal of the data. Furthermore, the extremes of length variation among taxa, combined with regional substitution rate variation can mislead the alignment of rRNA sequences and thus distort subsequent tree reconstructions. However, recent developments in phylogenetic methodology now allow a comprehensive integration of secondary structures in alignment and tree reconstruction analyses based on rRNA sequences, which has been shown to correct some of these problems. Here, we explore the potentials of RNA substitution models and the interactions of specific model setups with the inherent pattern of covariation in rRNA stems and substitution rate variation among loop regions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found an explicit impact of RNA substitution models on tree reconstruction analyses. The application of specific RNA models in tree reconstructions is hampered by interaction between the appropriate modelling of covarying sites in stem regions, and excessive homoplasy in some loop regions. RNA models often failed to recover reasonable trees when single-stranded regions are excessively homoplastic, because these regions contribute a greater proportion of the data when covarying sites are essentially downweighted. In this context, the RNA6A model outperformed all other models, including the more parametrized RNA7 and RNA16 models.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results depict a trade-off between increased accuracy in estimation of interdependencies in helical regions with the risk of magnifying positions lacking phylogenetic signal. We can therefore conclude that caution is warranted when applying rRNA covariation models, and suggest that loop regions be independently screened for phylogenetic signal, and eliminated when they are indistinguishable from random noise. In addition to covariation and homoplasy, other factors, like non-stationarity of substitution rates and base compositional heterogeneity, can disrupt the signal of ribosomal RNA data. All these factors dictate sophisticated estimation of evolutionary pattern in rRNA data, just as other molecular data require similarly complicated (but different) corrections.
authors: Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Zentrum für molekulare Biodiversitätsforschung, Adenauerallee, Bonn, Germany. h.letsch.zfmk@uni-bonn.de
authors: Harald O
authors: HO
authors: Letsch
authors: Karl M
authors: KM
authors: Kjer
references: Syst Biol. 2008 Jun;57(3):388-405
references: 18570034
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Aug;28(2):241-52
references: 12878461
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1993 Jan;10(1):256-67
references: 8450759
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 22;98(11):6241-6
references: 11353869
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006 Jun;39(3):812-29
references: 16483803
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006 May;39(2):323-34
references: 16359875
references: Genetics. 1995 Oct;141(2):771-83
references: 8647409
references: Syst Biol. 2000 Mar;49(1):52-64
references: 12116483
references: J Mol Evol. 2007 May;64(5):543-57
references: 17460808
references: Biol Direct. 2010 Jan 15;5:4
references: 20078867
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Feb;18(2):132-43
references: 11158372
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Jul 15;30(14):3059-66
references: 12136088
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006 Sep;40(3):830-43
references: 16762568
references: Genetics. 1998 Apr;148(4):1993-2002
references: 9560412
references: J Mol Evol. 2010 Aug;71(2):153-67
references: 20697701
references: J Mol Evol. 1999 Oct;49(4):509-23
references: 10486008
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1998 Sep;15(9):1189-94
references: 9729883
references: J Mol Evol. 1993 Aug;37(2):221-32
references: 8411212
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2009 May 27;9:119
references: 19473484
references: Mol Biol Evol. 1988 Jan;5(1):90-6
references: 3357414
references: Syst Biol. 2009 Feb;58(1):21-34
references: 20525566
references: Nature. 2001 Feb 1;409(6820):614-8
references: 11214319
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Dec;33(3):936-43
references: 15522814
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Sep;19(9):1591-601
references: 12200486
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):175-6
references: 10592217
references: Syst Biol. 2002 Aug;51(4):588-98
references: 12228001
references: Syst Biol. 2004 Jun;53(3):506-14
references: 15503677
references: Insect Mol Biol. 2006 Oct;15(5):657-86
references: 17069639
references: Integr Comp Biol. 2006 Jun;46(3):255-68
references: 21672740
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1994 Sep;3(3):240-7
references: 7529616
references: Syst Biol. 2004 Feb;53(1):38-46
references: 14965899
references: Syst Biol. 2001 Nov-Dec;50(6):781-816
references: 12116634
references: Nature. 2001 Feb 1;409(6820):610-4
references: 11214318
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 05;9:187
references: 19656395
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Feb;22(2):251-64
references: 15483324
references: Microbiol Rev. 1987 Jun;51(2):221-71
references: 2439888
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Dec 15;29(24):5017-28
references: 11812832
references: J Mol Biol. 2000 Jul 21;300(4):791-803
references: 10891269
references: Biochem Genet. 1997 Jun;35(5-6):165-79
references: 9332711
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Oct;45(1):289-310
references: 17728156
references: Syst Biol. 2003 Jun;52(3):283-95
references: 12775520
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 1;28(1):177-8
references: 10592218
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Jun;24(6):1286-99
references: 17347157
references: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1998 Jun;9(3):501-8
references: 9667998
references: Zoolog Sci. 2003 Oct;20(10):1243-7
references: 14569147
references: Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Oct;37(18):6184-93
references: 19723687
references: Q Rev Biophys. 2000 Aug;33(3):199-253
references: 11191843
references: Syst Biol. 2002 Aug;51(4):664-71
references: 12228008
references: Nature. 1996 Sep 12;383(6596):130-1
references: 8774876
references: Syst Biol. 1998 Mar;47(1):3-8
references: 12064238
references: Science. 2001 Dec 14;294(5550):2348-51
references: 11743200
references: Bioinformatics. 2006 Nov 1;22(21):2688-90
references: 16928733
references: J Mol Evol. 1999 Oct;49(4):496-508
references: 10486007
references: Bioinformatics. 2005 Feb 15;21(4):456-63
references: 15608047
references: Nature. 1997 Jul 3;388(6637):61-4
references: 9214502
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Jan 25;7:8
references: 17254354
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2002;3:2
references: 11869452
references: Syst Biol. 1998 Mar;47(1):9-17
references: 12064243
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Apr;22(4):1129-36
references: 15689526
references: Genetics. 2001 Jan;157(1):399-411
references: 11139520
references: Mol Biol Evol. 2010 Nov;27(11):2507-21
references: 20530152
references: J Mol Biol. 2006 Apr 21;358(1):193-212
references: 16510155
references: Genetics. 2000 Feb;154(2):909-21
references: 10655240
references: J Hered. 2001 Jul-Aug;92(4):371-3
references: 11535656
references: Science. 2001 May 4;292(5518):883-96
references: 11283358
references: Q Rev Biol. 1991 Dec;66(4):411-53
references: 1784710
references: Biochim Biophys Acta. 1994 Mar 1;1217(2):147-55
references: 8110829