Why do phylogenomic analyses of early animal evolution continue to disagree? Sites in different structural environments yield different answers
Phylogenomics has revolutionized the study of evolutionary relationships. However, genome-scale data have not been able to resolve all relationships in the tree of life. This could reflect the poor-fit of the models used to analyze heterogeneous datasets; that heterogeneity is likely to have many explanations. However, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the different patterns of selection on proteins based on their structures might represent a source of heterogeneity. To test that hypothesis, we developed an efficient pipeline to divide phylogenomic datasets that comprise proteins into subsets based on secondary structure and relative solvent accessibility. We then tested whether amino acids in different structural environments had different signals for the deepest branches in the metazoan tree of life. Sites located in different structural environments did support distinct tree topologies. The most striking difference in phylogenetic signal reflected relative solvent accessibility; analyses of sites on the surface of proteins yielded a tree that placed ctenophores sister to all other animals whereas sites buried inside proteins yielded a tree with a sponge-ctenophore clade. These differences in phylogenetic signal were not ameliorated when we repeated our analyses using the site-heterogeneous CAT model, a mixture model that is often used for analyses of protein datasets. In fact, analyses using the CAT model actually resulted in rearrangements that are unlikely to represent evolutionary history. These results provide striking evidence that it will be necessary to achieve a better understanding the constraints due to protein structure to improve phylogenetic estimation.