Nav: Home

Genomic tools for species discovery inflate estimates of species numbers, U-Michigan biologists contend

January 30, 2017

ANN ARBOR -- Increasingly popular techniques that infer species boundaries in animals and plants solely by analyzing genetic differences are flawed and can lead to inflated diversity estimates, according to a new study from two University of Michigan evolutionary biologists.

Lacey Knowles and Jeet Sukumaran investigated the accuracy of inferences made by a mathematical model widely used to quickly determine the boundaries between species without the time-consuming, painstaking process of comparing specimens in museum collections.

They found that the genetic approach, formally known as the multispecies coalescent model, can lead to species estimates that are five to 13 times higher than the true numbers.

Because the species is the fundamental unit for all evolutionary and ecological studies, their findings are expected to have wide-ranging implications, from biodiversity studies to conservation planning. Their results are scheduled for online publication Jan. 30 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This is an area that has really taken off over the last decade. On its surface, the genomic approach looks like a panacea because it's very fast and doesn't require any kind of taxonomic expertise," said Knowles, a professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and curator of insects at the university's Museum of Zoology.

"So it's been promoted as a way to speed up inventories of biodiversity by combining the automation of genomics with the statistical power of these models. The only problem is, this method is not doing what we think it is doing, resulting in an overestimate of species numbers."

The U-M researchers say their paper serves as both a warning and a call to action -- a warning against reliance on genomic data alone and a call for new methods to improve genomic-based species delimitation approaches.

For now, results from such studies should be considered "at best as tentative hypotheses of species" to be confirmed or rejected through additional analysis using traditional taxonomic methods, such as the physical comparison of museum specimens, according to the authors.

The multispecies coalescent model is widely used to assess understudied populations in known biological hotspots. For example, the approach has been applied to studies of lizards and snakes in southwestern Australian deserts, Amazonian frogs, savanna plants in Brazil and beetles from the Andes.

Tissue samples from target organisms are collected in the field -- toe pads from desert lizards in various locations, for example -- and DNA from the samples is later sequenced in the lab, revealing genetic differences among individuals. The multispecies coalescent model then looks at the genetic differences and attempts to draw boundaries between species.

"Suddenly it seemed like there was a magic bullet. You just have to push a button and you get your species," said Sukumaran, an assistant research scientist in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. "But a lot of people got carried away."

Mathematical models are simplified representations of reality and always include assumptions about how the world works. One of the assumptions used to simplify the multispecies coalescent model is that new species form instantaneously after a population of plants or animals becomes geographically isolated.

In reality, not all isolated populations become new species, and the speciation process involves a gradual accumulation of genetic differences over decades, millennia or even millions of years.

"Everyone knows that speciation is not an instantaneous process. But what no one has questioned, until now, is how ignoring that fact changes the story this model is telling us," Sukumaran said. "This paper places that issue front and center."

Sukumaran and Knowles wanted to know what would happen if the multispecies coalescent model was applied to situations in which speciation is a protracted process rather than an instantaneous event.

They used simulated genetic data to compare how the model handled those two scenarios and found that the model overestimates species numbers when it fails to account for the protracted nature of speciation, averaging five to 13 times more estimated species than were actually present in the data.

The inflated species estimates happen because the model misidentifies normal within-species patterns of genetic variation, which biologists call genetic structure, as species boundaries, according to Sukumaran and Knowles. In recent decades, a flood of genomic data collected around the globe from all types of organisms has revealed increasingly finer details in genetic structure, as though biologists had suddenly gained access to a new, more powerful type of microscope.

Paradoxically, this more detailed, higher-resolution view of genomes has made it harder, rather than easier, to distinguish the boundaries between species, according to Knowles and Sukumaran. That's largely because the multispecies coalescent model cannot distinguish the genetic differences found among isolated populations of animals and plants from the true species boundaries, they conclude.

"The irony is that the more genomic data we collect, the less certain we are as to where the species boundaries lie," Knowles said. "Going forward, we are going to need to both improve our models and fall back on alternate -- and maybe even more traditional -- forms of data to be able to identify species in the age of big data."
-end-
The work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Knowles and Sukumaran have applied for a follow-up grant from NSF to find ways to overcome the problems highlighted in their PNAS paper.

"This is not an intractable problem," Knowles said. "The methods are theoretically sound but are not accurate in practice because they don't reflect the biological reality of how new species form. Once we correct that, we will have a very powerful tool."

University of Michigan

Related Evolutionary Biology Articles:

Evolutionary discovery to rewrite textbooks
Scientists at The University of Queensland have upended biologists' century-old understanding of the evolutionary history of animals.
Godzilla is back and he's bigger than ever: The evolutionary biology of the monster
Godzilla first made his debut in 1954 as a 50-meter tall metaphor for indiscriminate destruction, particularly US hydrogen-bomb testing in the Marshall Islands, which, in the film, destroyed Godzilla's deep-sea ecosystem.
Evolutionary origins of animal biodiversity
A new study by an international team of researchers, led by scientists from the University of Bristol, has revealed the origins and evolution of animal body plans.
What nipple size means for evolutionary biology
Nipple size varies markedly from woman to woman, whereas male nipples are more uniform.
At last, butterflies get a bigger, better evolutionary tree
Butterflies offer key insights into community ecology, how species originate and evolve, climate change and interactions between plants and insects.
More Evolutionary Biology News and Evolutionary Biology Current Events

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Erasing The Stigma
Many of us either cope with mental illness or know someone who does. But we still have a hard time talking about it. This hour, TED speakers explore ways to push past — and even erase — the stigma. Guests include musician and comedian Jordan Raskopoulos, neuroscientist and psychiatrist Thomas Insel, psychiatrist Dixon Chibanda, anxiety and depression researcher Olivia Remes, and entrepreneur Sangu Delle.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...