Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters

Mathematical Biosciences

Volumn 134, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 189-215

  Chang, Joseph T ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; EVOLUTION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY; THEORY;

EID: 0029919254     PISSN: 00255564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0025-5564(95)00172-7     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. T. H. Jukes and C. R. Cantor, Evolution of protein molecules, in Mammalian Protein Metabolism, H. N. Munro, ed., Academic, New York, 1969, pp. 21-132.
2. J. A. Cavender, Taxonomy with confidence, Math. Biosci. 40:271-280 (1978).
3. M. Kimura, A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitution through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences, J. Mol. Evol. 16:111-120 (1980).
4. D. Barry and J. A. Hartigan, Asynchronous distance between homologous DNA sequences, Biometrics 43:261-276 (1987).
5. J. Felsenstein, Statistical inference of phylogenies, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. A 146:264-272 (1983).
6. J. Felsenstein, Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability, Annu. Rev. Genet. 22:521-565 (1988).
7. D. Barry and J. A. Hartigan, Statistical analysis of hominoid molecular evolution, Stat. Sci. 2:191-210 (1987).
8. W.-H. Li and D. Graur, Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 1991.
9. M. Nei, Molecular Evolutionary Genetrics, Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1987.
10. W. M. Fitch and E. Margoliash, A method for estimating the number of invariant amino acid coding positions in a gene using cytochrome c as a model case, Biochem. Genet. 1:65-71 (1967).
11. J. S. Shoemaker and W. M. Fitch, Evidence from nuclear sequences that invariable sites should be considered when sequence divergence is calculated, Mol. Biol. Evol. 6:270-289 (1989).
12. G. A. Churchill, A. von Haeseler, and W. C. Navidi, Sample size for a phylogenetic inference, Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:753-769 (1992).
13. L. Jin and M. Nei, Limitations of the evolutionary parsimony method of phylogenetic analysis, Mol. Biol. Evol. 7:82-102 (1990).
14. C. Kelly and J. Rice, Modeling molecular evolution: a heterogeneous rate analysis, Math. Biosci. 133:85-109 (1996).
15. R. Lundstrom, S. Tavaré, and R. H. Ward, Modeling the evolution of the human mitochondrial genome, Math. Biosci. 112:319-335 (1992).
16. A. Sidow, T. Nguyen, and T. P. Speed, Estimating the fraction of invariable codons with a capture-recapture method, J. Mol. Evol. 35:253-260 (1992).
17. Z. Yang, Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates vary over sites, Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401 (1993).
18. J. T. Chang and J. A. Hartigan, Reconstruction of evolutionary trees from pairwise distributions on current species, in Computing Science and Statistics, Proc. 23rd Symp. on the Interface, E. M. Keramidas, ed., Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station, VA, 1991, pp. 254-257.
19. J. A. Cavender and J. Felsenstein, Invariants of phylogenies in a simple case with discrete states, J. Classif. 4:57-71 (1987).
20. J. Felsenstein, Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters, Syst. Zool. 22:240-249 (1973).
21. A. Wald, Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate, Ann. Math. Stat. 20:595-601 (1949).
22. J. Felsenstein, Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading, Syst. Zool. 27:401-410 (1978).
23. J. S. Farris, A. G. Kluge, and M. J. Eckardt, A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics, Syst. Zool. 19:172-191 (1970).
24. W. M. Fitch, Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology, Syst. Zool. 20:406-416 (1971).
25. Y. Tateno, N. Takezaki, and M. Nei, Relative efficiencies of the maximum-like-lihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum-parsimony methods where substitution rate varies with site, Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:261-277 (1994).
26. M. K. Kuhner and J. Felsenstein, A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates, Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:459-468 (1994).
27. J. J. Bull, J. P. Huelsenbeck, C. W. Cunningham, D. L. Swofford, and P. J. Waddell, Partitioning and combining data in phyogenetic analysis, Syst. Biol. 42:384-397 (1993).
28. M. A. Steel, L. A. Szekely, and M. D. Hendy, Reconstructing trees when sequence sites evolve at variable rates, J. Comput. Biol. 1:153-163 (1994).
29. M. Hasegawa, H. Kishino, and T. Yano, Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitrochondrial DNA, J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174 (1985).
30. P. J. Lockhart, M. A. Steel, M. D. Hendy, and D. Penny, Recoving evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:605-612 (1994).
31. J. A. Lake, Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein sequences: paralinear distances, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:1455-1459 (1994).
32. R. B. Ash, Information Theory, Wiley, New York, 1965.
33. E. Sober, Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.