Drosophila melanogaster and its close relatives are used extensively in comparative biology. Despite the importance of phylogenetic information for such studies, relationships between some melanogaster species group members are unclear due to conflicting phylogenetic signals at different loci. In this study, we use twelve nuclear loci (eleven coding and one non-coding) to assess the degree of phylogenetic incongruence in this model system. We focus on two nodes: (1) the node joining the Drosophila erecta-Drosophila orena, Drosophila melanogaster-Drosophila simulans, and Drosophila yakuba-Drosophila teissieri lineages, and (2) the node joining the lineages leading to the melanogaster, takahashii, and eugracilis subgroups. We find limited evidence for incongruence at the first node; our data, as well as those of several previous studies, strongly support monophyly of a clade consisting of D. erecta-D. orena and D. yakuba-D. teissieri. By contrast, using likelihood based tests of congruence, we find robust evidence for topological incongruence at the second node. Different loci support different relationships among the melanogaster, takahashii, and eugracilis subgroups, and the observed incongruence is not easily attributable to homoplasy, non-equilibrium base composition, or positive selection on a subset of loci. We argue that lineage sorting in the common ancestor of these three subgroups is the most plausible explanation for our observations. Such lineage sorting may lead to biased estimation of tree topology and evolutionary rates, and may confound inferences of positive selection.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Drosophila, Incongruence, Lineage sorting, Melanogaster subgroup, Phylogeny, Recombination
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.09.002
Journal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Citation
Wong, A, Jensen, J.D. (Jeffrey D.), Pool, J.E. (John E.), & Aquadro, C.F. (Charles F.). (2007). Phylogenetic incongruence in the Drosophila melanogaster species group. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43(3), 1138–1150. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.09.002