Date Published: July 23, 2008
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Author(s): E. Alejandro Herrada, Claudio J. Tessone, Konstantin Klemm, Víctor M. Eguíluz, Emilio Hernández-García, Carlos M. Duarte, Enrico Scalas. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002757
Abstract: Understanding the patterns and processes of diversification of life in the planet is a key challenge of science. The Tree of Life represents such diversification processes through the evolutionary relationships among the different taxa, and can be extended down to intra-specific relationships. Here we examine the topological properties of a large set of interspecific and intraspecific phylogenies and show that the branching patterns follow allometric rules conserved across the different levels in the Tree of Life, all significantly departing from those expected from the standard null models. The finding of non-random universal patterns of phylogenetic differentiation suggests that similar evolutionary forces drive diversification across the broad range of scales, from macro-evolutionary to micro-evolutionary processes, shaping the diversity of life on the planet.
Partial Text: The Tree of Life is a synoptic depiction of the pathways of evolutionary differentiation between Earth life forms , and contains valuable clues on the key issue of understanding the diversification of life in the planet . The branching pattern of the Tree of Life, which is being captured at increasing resolution by the advent of molecular tools , can be examined to investigate fundamental questions, such as whether it follows universal rules, and at what extent random differentiation mechanisms explain the shape of phylogenetic trees. The examination of the structure of the Tree of Life can also help to infer whether evolution acts at intraspecific scales in a way different from the action of evolution at the interspecific scale. Here we address these fundamental questions on the basis of a comprehensive comparative analysis of phylogenetic trees representing different fractions and domains of the Tree of Life, from interspecific to intraspecific scales. We draw from previous analyses of the geometry of the Tree of Life , the characterization of other branching systems , , and using tools derived from modern network theory – to examine the scaling of the branching in the Tree of Life , . Our analysis is based on a thorough data set of more than 5000 interspecific phylogenies and a sample of 67 intraspecific phylogenies (see Text S1), thereby testing the universality of the results derived across scales.
The branch-size CCDF displays power-law tails of the form for large branch size A (Figure 2A). The power-law exponents τA are remarkably similar for the data sets analyzed: τA = 1.76±0.03, and 1.74±0.02 for intra- and interspecific phylogenies, respectively. Similarly, the cumulative-branch-size CCDF also displays a power-law tail of the form at large C, with a similar agreement between the exponents of the intra- and interspecific data sets: τC = 1.53±0.02 and 1.53±0.02, respectively (Figure 2B). The discrepancy observed between the two data sets at the tail of the distributions can be explained by the different sizes of the typical trees on them: each tree contributes a natural cutoff to the overall distribution, and since the intraspecific trees are smaller in average, their cutoff appears at smaller tree sizes.
Traditionally, microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes have been studied independently by population geneticists and evolutionary biologists, respectively . The divide between these two levels of generation of biological diversity is an old one, rooted in the controversy between Darwinian gradualism and the saltationism proposed by others, prominently paleontologists, to explain macroevolutionary processes . The debate as to whether macroevolution is more than the accumulation of microevolutionary events remains active , , , although refined paleontological evidence supports the continuum between micro- and macroevolution for some lineages . The results presented here show that the branching and scaling patterns in intraspecific and interspecific phylogenies do not differ significantly for the topological properties we have calculated. Thus, shall saltation processes be a factor at the macroevolutive level, this is not reflected in the topology of phylogenetic branching as examined here. Evidence for possible differences in phylogenetic topologies between the inter- and intraspecific levels may require a detailed analysis of branching times, which we have not attempted.