This repository holds trait data data and scripts for part of the methods of the manuscript entitled Evolutionary dynamics of mycorrhizal symbiosis in land plant diversification by Frida A.A. Feijen, Rutger A. Vos, Jorinde Nuytinck & Vincent S.F.T. Merckx. The contents of this repository are made available under a CC-BY license.
Directory structure:
- data: contains verbatim input data and pruned/converted versions
- script: contains conversion scripts
- doc: supporting documentation, manuscript files
- results: final output files
Plant systematists assign four different rootings of the land plants enough plausibility that we consider them here. These four rootings are intended to orient the following major groups relative to one another: liverworts (Marchantiophyta), mosses (Bryophyta), hornworts (Anthocerotophyta) and vascular plants (Tracheophyta).
- MBasal - liverworts split off first, followed by mosses,
and hornworts are sister to vascular plants. This yields the following topology:
(((Anthocerotophyta,Tracheophyta),Bryophyta),Marchantiophyta); - ABasal - hornworts branch off first, yielding the
following topology:
(((Marchantiophyta,Bryophyta),Tracheophyta),Anthocerotophyta); - TBasal - vascular plants branch off first, yielding
the following topology:
(((Marchantiophyta,Bryophyta),Anthocerotophyta),Tracheophyta); - ATxMB - liverworts and mosses (M,B) form a monophyletic
group, and so do hornworts and vascular plants (A,T), resulting in:
((Marchantiophyta,Bryophyta),(Anthocerotophyta,Tracheophyta));In the manuscript, this is considered the preferred rooting, which we will explore in more depth than the others. Earlier versions of the analyses also explored MBasal, so there may be reference to that here and there.
For each of the rootings, we performed a BEAST dating analysis. The results of these analyses are part of a separate (too-large-for-github) submission available at 10.5281/zenodo.1037548.
Using consensus over the BEAST trees, we performed phylogenetic comparative multistate
analyses with the program BayesTraits,
in which each state change is a transition that is modeled in a Q matrix, which is
amenable to parameter restriction so that various hypotheses can be tested using Bayes
Factors.
Because different higher taxa among the mycorrhiza can associate with land plants in a variety of observed combinations there is potentially a very large number of states: if we treat every permutation of associations as a potential state we will end up with an explosion of parameters in the Q matrix such that the analysis becomes practically intractable. But, we can reduce the number of parameters in the following ways:
- We only take the empirically observed combinations of observations, not all permutations (i.e. only these).
- We disallow transitions where more than one association is gained or lost instantaneously.
- We then do a Reversible Jump MCMC analysis to further reduce the Q matrix.
Broadly speaking, the steps that are described in the manuscript are described in the following, numbered sections. These steps have been executed in the data section of this repository, with different iterations in date-stamped folders. The most relevant of these subfolders are the most recent ones, in which the workflow was debugged and all the data were double-checked.
Note that this repository also contains abandoned results, e.g. earlier attempts to develop the general workflow, older versions of the input files, project background documentation, and so on. Old files that are not discussed in any of the READMEs should be considered irrelevant for the substance of the methods and results discussed in the manuscript.
First we make the raw input for BayesTraits/MultiState using the script
make_ms_input.pl. This assumes the following:
- The consensus trees are in Nexus format. Newick trees need to be converted to Nexus first, e.g. using FigTree, Mesquite, etc.
- The input data are a tabular file that must meet the following requirements: line breaks in UNIX format, a single header line that at least enumerates all state symbols as a space-separated list between parentheses, all subsequent lines start with the taxon name (spelled exactly the same as in the tree, including underscores for spaces), then one or more spaces (can be tabs), then the states, which can either be a single string or space (tab) separated. Verify that the data with associations is in the same format as HostFungusAssociations.txt or TableS1.txt.
For each line in the data file, the first word is matched against the tips in the tree,
any lines that don't match anything are assumed to be headers or footers and are
ignored. When this happens, a warning is emitted by
make_ms_input.pl, as follows:
putative taxon '$taxon' not in tree, ignoring (could also be table header)
Note that you need to capture STDOUT to make a states coding file, so the full command
is:
make_ms_input.pl -d <indata> -i <intree> -o <outtree> -t <outdata> > <states>
-dlocation of input data file-ilocation of input tree file in Nexus format-ooutput Nexus tree file, reconciled with data-toutput data in TSV format, reconciled with tree> <states>location to redirect states table to file
Then we create the BayesTraits/MultiState commands for restricting the transitions as
per the general idea described above. These commands will also ensure that the run is
done using reversible jump MCMC. Whether or not you use a hyperprior depends on whether
the script make_restrictions.pl was invoked with the
--hyper flag. It is probably a good idea to do this. In addition, by default, the
command file will configure a chain with 'infinite' iterations (i.e. -1) that needs to
be interrupted manually. If you have a better idea about the number of iterations it is
worth specifying that. A conservative estimate for the present project is 10 x 10^6
generations, of which we will want to discard up to 50% burnin (in one case this
appeared to be necessary). Lastly, it might make sense to indicate how many cores you
have available for the analysis, although this only works for multi-core (e.g. OpenMP)
versions. Hence, the full command would be:
make_restrictions.pl -states <states.tsv> -tree <outtree> [-iterations <iterations>]
[-cores <cores>] [-hyper <min,max>] [-fossil <tip1,tip2=value>] [-restrict <qAB=qBA>]
[-stones <min,max>]
-statesthe redirected states table from the previous step-treethe Nexus tree file produced by the previous step-iterationsoptional, number of iterations, otherwise Inf-coresoptional, number of CPU cores to use-hyperoptional, range for the hyperprior, comma separated-fossiloptional, fix a node (identified by tips) to a value-restrictoptional, fix a rate-stonesoptional, configures the stepping stone sampler for marginal lnL
Once this is done we should have a tree file in Nexus format, a data file in tab-separated spreadsheet format, and a text file with the restriction commands. You can now run the analysis, as per the instructions below, or explore your data first in Mesquite to do a visual check to see if it looks sane (probably a good idea).
If you want to explore your data in Mesquite you can run the make_nexus.pl script.
This script expects your data to be formatted with a header that enumerates all state
symbols between parentheses, like the first line in HostFungusAssociations.txt and
TableS1.txt. The full command would be:
make_nexus.pl -d <indata> -t <outtree> > <outdata.nex>
You can then open this file in Mesquite and trace the character state changes (as reconstructed under maximum parsimony) on the tree topology.
To run an analysis like this, we have to do the following steps:
-
install a Quad version of BayesTraits. This has higher precision to prevent underflows, which are somewhat possible because of the relatively large Q matrix.
-
open the program, i.e.:
BayesTraitsV2_OpenMP_Quad <tree.nex> <data.tsv> < restrictions.txt
The general idea is that many of these analyses are run (to evaluate all the hypotheses, for all rootings, and replicated (we ran this triplicated)). Hence, the following step is to post process all the log files for hypothesis test results and visualizations.
- The data directory data/2016-12-01 establishes a workflow for running various hypothesis tests applied to different rootings. The documentation there should also make clear how the rate constraint tests are applied to the others rootings, in directory data/2017-03-06. From the marginal likelihoods of the different constraints, the rate constraints table is populated so that the Bayes factors can be computed.
- The iteration of the workflow that produced the figures presented in the manuscript was executed in data/2017-10-06. That directory's README contains more detailed information about the analysis steps.
The general outcomes of this project are:
- A database of observed associations, summarized here
- The four rootings, given here as simplified topologies (PDFs):
- Reconstruction of the root states, visualized as pie charts for the four roots:
- Hypothesis testing results, collected in a table of the constraints tested on the four rootings, in triplicate, and compared with unconstrained runs, significant differences calculated as Bayes factors.
- Reconstruction of the interior nodes, for the preferred rooting (
ATxMB) a reconstruction of the ancestral states for all the nodes: - Estimates of state transition rates, for the preferred rooting visualized as:
- Sliding window analysis of states, visualized as:
- states through time plot that shows which likelihood pie slices dominated sliding windows from the root of the tree to the present. Based on these data
React
Typescript
Django
Laravel
Facebook
Microsoft
Google
Alibaba
D3
Tencent