Because diversity profiles can take into account the similarity of taxa and the

relative importance of rare versus abundant taxa, we sought to evaluate how incorporating the phylogenetic similarity of taxa provides a different view of microbial diversity compared to traditional taxonomy-based metrics. Second, we looked for evidence of bias and robustness of phylogenetic diversity profiles using simulated communities. We created numerous communities that varied in their rank abundance distributions, tree topologies, and whether ultrametric or non-ultrametric Selleck P505-15 trees were used. Tree topologies were also simulated to create communities that spanned a large range of tree balances. Tree https://www.selleckchem.com/products/nvp-bsk805.html balance is determined by evolutionary processes, in particular lineage divergence and extinction

rates and patterns, which differ greatly among real microbial communities [24]. We wanted to compare how “naïve” diversity profiles (what Leinster & Cobbold term calculations that do not take taxa similarity information into account [17]) and similarity-based diversity profiles are influenced by the topological characteristics (e.g., tree ultrametricity, tree balance) of the sampled communities. We tested the concordance between taxonomic and phylogenetic measures of diversity and composition. We predicted that since OTU-based metrics Torin 1 ic50 are discrete transformations of phylogenetic measures, they would generally agree. Simulations (and real data) were also used to

test whether this concordance is correlated with aspects of the sampled community including aspects of its phylogenetic Pyruvate dehydrogenase topology, richness, and abundance distribution. Our analyses indicate that phylogenetic diversity profiles provide insights into microbial community diversity that would not be discernible with the use of traditional univariate diversity metrics. Methods Diversity profiles Diversity profiles were calculated for experimental, observational, and simulated microbial communities, as presented in detail by Leinster & Cobbold [17]. Briefly, consider a fully sampled community that contains S unique species. The relative abundances of the species are calculated by p 1, . . . , p s , such that p i  ≥ 0 and . Because p i  ≠ 0, diversity profiles consider only species that are actually present in a community. Information regarding the similarities between species in the community is taken into account by a matrix Z = (Z ij ). The matrix has dimensions S X S, and Z ij measures the similarity between the ith and the jth species. Similarity is scored such that 0 ≤ Z ij  ≤ 1, so that 0 represents complete dissimilarity between two species and 1 represents identical species. When similarity information is not available, or authors do not wish to include it, Z ij  = 1 in all cases, and this results in a naïve calculation. Diversity profiles were then calculated across the range of a sensitivity parameter, q, for the values of 0 ≤ q ≤ ∞.