Section: Evolutionary Biology
Topic:
Biology of interactions,
Ecology,
Evolution
The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on Monte Carlo-based null models of phylosymbiosis
Corresponding author(s): DuBose, James G. (james.g.dubose@gmail.com)
10.24072/pcjournal.667 - Peer Community Journal, Volume 5 (2025), article no. e139
Get full text PDF Peer reviewed and recommended by PCI
Variation in host-associated microbial communities often parallels patterns of phylogenetic divergence between hosts, a pattern known as phylosymbiosis. Understanding of this phenomenon relies initially on quantifying phylosymbiotic signals from across a broad range of host taxa. Quantifying signals of phylosymbiosis is typically achieved by calculating how congruent a host’s phylogenetic tree is with a dendrogram that represents patterns of dissimilarity in their associated microbial communities. To statistically assess the degree of congruence, several studies have constructed null models using a Monte Carlo approach to randomly sample trees. Although this approach is becoming more common, it has several features that warrant benchmarking to advise its further use. This approach relies on quantification of congruence between a host’s phylogenetic tree its microbial community dendrogram. Therefore, it is important to establish how choice of congruence metric influences null model-based inferences. Furthermore, phylosymbiotic signals may manifest at different scales of host divergence, and it is important to establish the extent of host phylogenetic breadth needed to reliably detect a phylosymbiotic signal. To help improve our study of phylosymbiosis, here I examine how power and type 1 error (false positive) rates associated with this approach varies with choice of congruence metric and host phylogenetic coverage. Furthermore, I examine variation in sensitivity given uncertainty in tree estimation, as well as how well null congruence models align with expectations of community assembly that is completely neutral with respect to host phylogeny. I generally found that model performance increased rapidly with increasing tree sizes, suggesting lower limits on the host phylogenetic breadth needed to reliably detect phylosymbiotic signals with this approach. Furthermore, I found several notable variations in performance between congruence metrics, which translated into different inferences regarding signal detection. Overall, these findings suggest that Monte Carlo sampling across tree space can be an effective way to quantify phylosymbiotic signals and highlight key considerations for its implementation.
Type: Research article
DuBose, James G. 1
CC-BY 4.0
@article{10_24072_pcjournal_667,
author = {DuBose, James G.},
title = {The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on {Monte} {Carlo-based} null models of phylosymbiosis
},
journal = {Peer Community Journal},
eid = {e139},
year = {2025},
publisher = {Peer Community In},
volume = {5},
doi = {10.24072/pcjournal.667},
language = {en},
url = {https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.667/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - DuBose, James G. TI - The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on Monte Carlo-based null models of phylosymbiosis JO - Peer Community Journal PY - 2025 VL - 5 PB - Peer Community In UR - https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.667/ DO - 10.24072/pcjournal.667 LA - en ID - 10_24072_pcjournal_667 ER -
%0 Journal Article %A DuBose, James G. %T The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on Monte Carlo-based null models of phylosymbiosis %J Peer Community Journal %D 2025 %V 5 %I Peer Community In %U https://peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10.24072/pcjournal.667/ %R 10.24072/pcjournal.667 %G en %F 10_24072_pcjournal_667
DuBose, J. G. The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on Monte Carlo-based null models of phylosymbiosis. Peer Community Journal, Volume 5 (2025), article no. e139. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.667
PCI peer reviews and recommendation, and links to data, scripts, code and supplementary information: 10.24072/pci.evolbiol.100874
Conflict of interest of the recommender and peer reviewers:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
[1] Matching Split Distance for Unrooted Binary Phylogenetic Trees, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Volume 9 (2012) no. 1, pp. 150-160 | DOI
[2] Phylosymbiosis: Relationships and Functional Effects of Microbial Communities across Host Evolutionary History, PLOS Biology, Volume 14 (2016), p. e2000225 | DOI
[3] The generalized Robinson–Foulds metric, Algorithms in Bioinformatics (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Volume 8126, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 156-169 | DOI
[4] A Metric on Phylogenetic Tree Shapes, Systematic Biology, Volume 67 (2018) no. 1, pp. 113-126 | DOI
[5] Elucidating the role of the host genome in shaping microbiome composition, Gut Microbes, Volume 7 (2016) no. 2, pp. 178-184 | DOI
[6] The relative importance of host phylogeny and dietary convergence in shaping the bacterial communities hosted by several Sonoran Desert Drosophila species, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 38 (2025) no. 2, pp. 180-189 | DOI
[7] Data, scripts and supplementary material for "The effects of host phylogenetic coverage and congruence metric on Monte Carlo based null models of phylosymbiosis", 2025 | DOI
[8] No evidence for phylosymbiosis in western chipmunk species, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Volume 96 (2020) no. 1, p. fiz182 | DOI
[9] Ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying patterns of phylosymbiosis in host-associated microbial communities, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 375 (2020) no. 1798, p. 20190251 | DOI
[10] Ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying patterns of phylosymbiosis in host-associated microbial communities, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 375 (2020) no. 1798, p. 20190251 | DOI
[11] An introduction to phylosymbiosis, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 287 (2020) no. 1922, p. 20192900 | DOI
[12] Prevalence and underlying mechanisms of phylosymbiosis in land plants, Journal of Plant Ecology, Volume 17 (2024) no. 6, p. rtae051 | DOI
[13] The detection of disease clustering and generalized regression approach, Cancer Research, Volume 27 (1967) no. 2, pp. 209-220
[14] Community structure of the gut microbiota in sympatric species of wild Drosophila, Ecology Letters, Volume 20 (2017) no. 5, pp. 629-639 | DOI
[15] Is Host Filtering the Main Driver of Phylosymbiosis across the Tree of Life?, mSystems, Volume 3 (2018) no. 5, pp. e00097-18 | DOI
[16] Inferring the Dynamics of Diversification: A Coalescent Approach, PLoS Biology, Volume 8 (2010) no. 9, p. e1000493 | DOI
[17] A novel algorithm and web-based tool for comparing two alternative phylogenetic trees, Bioinformatics, Volume 22 (2006) no. 1, pp. 117-119 | DOI
[18] vegan: Community Ecology Package, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan, 2022
[19] ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R, Bioinformatics, Volume 35 (2019) no. 3, pp. 526-528 | DOI
[20] Do closely related species interact with similar partners? Testing for phylogenetic signal in bipartite interaction networks, Peer Community Journal, Volume 2 (2022), p. e59 | DOI
[21] Phylogenetic Comparative Approach Reveals Evolutionary Conservatism, Ancestral Composition, and Integration of Vertebrate Gut Microbiota, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 40 (2023) no. 7, p. msad144 | DOI
[22] Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny, Nature Communications, Volume 9 (2018) no. 1, p. 4921 | DOI
[23] Phylosymbiosis: The Eco-Evolutionary Pattern of Insect–Symbiont Interactions, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Volume 24 (2023) no. 21, p. 15836 | DOI
[24] R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2022
[25] Comparison of phylogenetic trees, Mathematical Biosciences, Volume 53 (1981) no. 1-2, pp. 131-147 | DOI
[26] Benchmarking null models and congruence metrics for quantifying phylosymbiosis, Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology (2025) | DOI
[27] phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R, Bioinformatics, Volume 27 (2011) no. 4, pp. 592-593 | DOI
[28] statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python, 9th Python in Science Conference, 2010
[29] Robust Analysis of Phylogenetic Tree Space, Systematic Biology, Volume 71 (2022) no. 5, pp. 1255-1270 | DOI
[30] Information theoretic generalized Robinson–Foulds metrics for comparing phylogenetic trees, Bioinformatics, Volume 36 (2020) no. 20, pp. 5007-5013 | DOI
[31] TreeDist: Distances between Phylogenetic Trees. R package version 2.6.2, 2020 (Comprehensive R Archive Network) | DOI
[32] Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: a meta-analysis, Molecular Ecology, Volume 21 (2012), pp. 3363-3378 | DOI
[33] A bird's-eye view of phylosymbiosis: weak signatures of phylosymbiosis among all 15 species of cranes, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 287 (2020) no. 1923, p. 20192988 | DOI
[34] Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 85 (2010) no. 2, pp. 183-206 | DOI
[35] SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods, Volume 17 (2020), pp. 261-272 | DOI
Cited by Sources: