Next-generation cophylogeny: unravelling eco-evolutionary processes

Cophylogeny provides an appropriate setting to untie how the ecological and evolutionary facets of species interactions operate.The study phylogenetic agreement between histories two groups symbionts started as a means analyze constraints predictability in their codiversification.More recently, it has attracted attention other areas quest understand signal community assembly geographical distributions species.Whilst field fostered development battery tools elucidate cophylogenetic patterns symbiotic associations, linking mechanisms remains major outstanding challenge.Incorporating current trends eco-evolutionary research could propel forward principles analyses. A fundamental question biology is microevolutionary processes translate into diversification. framework address this for but historically been primarily limited unveiling patterns. We argue that essential integrate advances from ecology cophylogeny, gain greater mechanistic insights transform cophylogeny platform advance understanding interspecific diversification more widely. discuss key directions, such incorporating trait reconstruction considering multiple scales network organization, highlight recent developments implementation. new quantitative proposed allow integration relevant information, traits assessment contribution individual Biotic pervade all biological systems and, since no evolves isolation, can be claimed nothing evolution makes sense except light coevolution (see Glossary) [1.Charleston M. Libeskind-Hadas R. Event-based comparative analysis.in: Garamszegi L.Z. Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods Their Application Evolutionary Biology: Concepts Practice. Springer, 2014: 465-480Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar]. This especially evident symbiosis (parasitism, mutualism, commensalism). All animals plants, many organisms, host contribute genetic variation with genes associated functions, and/or impact fitness [2.Shapira Gut microbiotas evolution: scaling up symbiosis.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016; 31: 539-549Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed (170) Scholar,3.Munzi S. et al.When exception becomes rule: integrative approach symbiosis.Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 672: 855-861Crossref (5) Symbiosis plays roles ecosystem functioning stability driver novelty diversity [4.Zook D. Symbiosis—evolution’s co-author.in: Gontier N. Reticulate Evolution: Symbiogenesis, Lateral Gene Transfer, Hybridization Infectious Heredity. 2015: 41-80Crossref Symbiotic often involve reciprocal selection dynamics [5.Vidal M.C. Segraves K.A. Coevolved mutualists experience fluctuating costs benefits over time.Evolution. 2021; 75: 219-230Crossref (4) Scholar, 6.Lagrue C. al.Genetic structure host–parasite co-divergence: evidence trait-specific local adaptation.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 344-358Crossref (19) 7.Frickel al.Population size changes drive parallel host–virus system.Nat. Commun. 2018; 9: 1706Crossref (13) Despite recognition these important influences, central role organization maintenance biodiversity [8.Weber M.G. al.Evolution context: on integrating macroevolution.Trends 2017; 32: 291-304Abstract (91) Scholar], bring about macroevolutionary change incomplete. Illuminating lead requires being able disentangle influence lineage associations. Classical evaluates dependency organisms based extant (ecological scale) relationships discover influences [9.Charleston M.A. Recent results mapping.in: Advances Parasitology. Academic Press, 2003: 303-330Google Scholar] (Box 1). More interest behind associations leaked general way communities [10.Hadfield J.D. al.A tale phylogenies: analyses interactions.Am. Nat. 2014; 183: 174-187Crossref (63) 11.Hutchinson al.Cophylogenetic detectable pollination across scales.Ecology. 98: 2640-2652Crossref (17) 12.Pollock F.J. al.Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis cophylogeny.Nat. 4921Crossref (115) Over last 40 years, studies have reported variety different much progress made analytical (e.g., [13.Drinkwater B. Charleston RASCAL: randomized coevolutionary analysis.J. Comput. Biol. 23: 218-227Crossref 14.Hutchinson al.PACo: implementing procrustean R.Methods 8: 932-940Crossref (40) 15.Balbuena J.A. al.Random tanglegram partitions (Random TaPas): Alexandrian Gordian knot.Syst. 2020; 69: 1212-1230Crossref (7) Scholar]) (Figure S1 supplemental information online). However, challenge [16.Althoff D.M. al.Testing diversification: pattern process.Trends 29: 82-89Abstract (92) 17.Poisot T. When co-phylogeny coevolution?.in: Morand S.S. Parasite Diversity Diversification: Ecology Meets Phylogenetics. Cambridge University 420-433Crossref 18.Russo L. al.Quantitative bipartite networks: vicariance, tracking or diffuse co-evolution?.Methods 761-772Crossref (8) One likely reason situation lack alignment theory approaches. Consequently, our aim illustrate incorporation fruitfully These include phenotypic by methods [19.Adams D.C. Collyer M.L. multivariate phenotypes.Annu. Rev. Syst. 50: 405-425Crossref (33) assessing [20.Delmas E. al.Analysing networks interactions.Biol. 94: 16-36Crossref taking advantage genomic data, consideration intraspecific heterogeneity, dated phylogenies. Embracing will promote interpretations powerful symbiosis.Box 1Overview methodologyCophylogenetic fall categories: events-based global fit [14.Hutchinson Scholar,15.Balbuena Scholar,62.de Vienne al.Euclidean nature distance matrices.Syst. 2011; 60: 826-832Crossref (26) The former map symbiont phylogeny onto estimate events. phylogenies are considered congruent than expected chance, if estimated number events exceeds significance threshold when distribution obtained randomization (the P value equals proportion times trees tree at least well original tree). In some implementations [63.Conow al.Jane: tool problem.Algorithms Mol. 2010; 5: 16Crossref (268) Scholar]), may set during mapping stage model scenarios. Global evaluate congruence distances representing functions phylogeny. extent assessed permutating dataset determine observed result [64.Balbuena novel procrustes application analysis.PLoS One. 2013; 8e61048Crossref (145) Scholar,65.Legendre P. statistical test host-parasite coevolution.Syst. 2002; 51: 217-234Crossref (315) Scholar].A drawback even small taxa equally parsimonious solutions exceedingly high they strongly dependent good estimation considered. Additionally, typically maximizing cospeciation events, which not always biologically realistic [15.Balbuena Scholar,39.de al.Cospeciation vs host-shift speciation: testing, natural relation coevolution.New Phytol. 198: 347-385Crossref (253) Scholar,66.Nylin al.Embracing colonizations: paradigm association dynamics.Trends 33: 4-14Abstract (62) Whilst there well-documented problems [67.Ronquist F. Parsimony analysis coevolving associations.in: Page R.D.M. Tangled Trees: Phylogeny, Cospeciation Coevolution. Chicago 2002: 22-64Google rarely implemented practice. computationally efficient evaluation uncertainty host–symbiont links overall congruence. explanatory power counterparts Scholar].Both approaches only supplied them. one must make sure sampled delimited accurately proper account cryptic (a common issue taxa; see [68.Poulin Uneven among higher parasitic worms.Biol. Lett. 7: 241-244Crossref (67) Scholar]). For instance, overestimated closely related generalist (cryptic) [39.de New identify missing interaction offer effect incomplete sampling, particularly less studied [69.Dallas al.Predicting networks.PLoS Comp. 13e1005557Crossref (30) Scholar,70.Terry J.C.D. Lewis O.T. Finding networks.Ecology. 101e03047Crossref Cophylogenetic Both compares interacting partners latter presented binary matrix, where 0s 1s codify, respectively, absence presence 1A,B ). While basis investigating relationships, ignores strength thus precludes deeper processes. Many strict specialists, generalists utilize range taxa, frequent intense certain subsets hosts (i.e., principal hosts) [21.Braga M.P. al.Bayesian inference ancestral under repertoire evolution.Syst. 1149-1162Crossref Scholar,22.Aznar al.Establishing relative importance sympatric definitive transmission sealworm, Pseudoterranova decipiens: host-community approach.NAMMCO Sci. Pub. 2001; 3: 161-171Crossref Thus, better reflect convey strength, matrix should quantitative. Interaction measure property two-sided (host–symbiont) selected purpose later one-sided traits). plant–pollinator frequency visits represents both ability locate attract [23.Olesen J.M. al.The modularity networks.Proc. Natl. Acad. U. A. 2007; 104: 19891Crossref (1105) Likewise, systems, measures prevalence, abundance, virulence parasite exploitation strategy tolerance/resistance, also qualify [24.Poulin al.Host specificity geographic space.Trends Parasitol. 27: 355-361Abstract (209) 1C), several matrices [25.Nieberding C.M. use co-phylogenetic predict interactions, vice-versa.in: Krasnov Biogeography Host-Parasite Interactions. Oxford 2010: 59-70Google each 1D), used input methods. Interest noted evaluating Scholar,21.Braga classical studies. require adjustments within reach tools. history clades, communities, coevolution, link micro- macroevolution Scholar,26.Hall A.R. al.Measuring species-rich communities.Trends 35: 539-550Abstract (16) advocate inclusion putative settings features species. addition traits, additional present partner, interest. length mouth parts pollinators reflects floral characteristics [27.Alexandersson Johnson S.D. Pollinator–mediated flower–tube hawkmoth–pollinated Gladiolus (Iridaceae).Proc. 269: 631-636Crossref (173) Scholar,28.Klumpers S.G.T. al.Foraging efficiency matching community: sugar content tongue length.Ecol. 22: 469-479Crossref (43) Similarly, morphology attachment organs correlates substrate [29.Messu Mandeng F.D. Cichlidogyrus spp. (Monogenea, Dactylogyridea) clarifies host-switch fish families reveals adaptive component organ genus.Parasit. Vectors. 2015; 582Crossref (34) Scholar,30.Petersen D.S. al.Holding tight feathers – structural specializations properties avian ectoparasite Crataerina pallida (Diptera, Hippoboscidae).J. Exp. 221jeb179242Crossref (18) cases, morphological match itself trait. Contrary evolve along branches partner only, although depend partner. codependence accounting relationship 1E). Manceau al. [31.Manceau unifying including lineages.Syst. 66: 551-568PubMed developed elegant, though yet applied, consider codependent manner through trees. holds promise pinpoint characters contributing specialization promoting spill-over offers facilitate inferred Combining structured alternative scenarios hypotheses [32.Braga al.Unifying host-associated using butterfly–plant networks.Nat. 1-10Crossref (21) Explicit scale(s) carried out benefit future studies, because examining would revealing operating level [11.Hutchinson globally relational data collected large spatial scales) [33.Duron O. al.Evolutionary ticks.Mol. 26: 2905-2921Crossref (110) Scholar,34.Klimov P.B. al.Detecting ancient codispersals shifts double dating proctophyllodid feather mites passerine birds.Evolution. 71: 2381-2397Crossref (23) rarely, authors potential differences regional [35.Park al.Shared dispersal amphipods microsporidian parasites scales.Mol. 3330-3345Crossref (9) Since arise deep nodes, testing serve establish scale timing operated. was adopted Hutchinson who suggested most characterizes assemblages. Moreover, earlier probably lower (community/regional) levels. permeates finer scales. Interactions described nonrandom individuals taxa. emerging nonrandomness [36.Fortuna al.Nestedness versus sides same coin?.J. Anim. 79: 811-817PubMed Modules represent units Scholar,37.Bascompte Jordano Mutualistic Networks. Princeton 2014Crossref Scholar,38.Andreazzi C.S. al.Network asymmetry antagonistic 190: 99-115Crossref (24) provide ecologically meaningful Searching modules partic