Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: Identifiability and consistency

Mathematical Biosciences

Volumn 137, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 51-73

  Chang, Joseph T ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; TREE;

EID: 0030588055     PISSN: 00255564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0025-5564(96)00075-2     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 1. J. A. Cavender. Taxonomy with Confidence. Math. Biosci., 40:271-280 (1978).
2. 2. T. H. Jukes and C. R. Cantor. Evolution of protein molecules. In Mammalian Protein Metabolism, Academic Press, New York, 1969, pp. 21-132.
3. 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. 4. F. Tajima and M. Nei. Estimation of evolutionary distance between nucleotide sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol., 1:269-285 (1984).
5. 5. D. Barry and J. A. Hartigan. Asynchronous distance between homologous DNA sequences. Biometrics, 43:261-276 (1987).
6. 6. A. Rzhetsky and M. Nei. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol., 12:131-151 (1995).
7. 7. J. T. Chang and J. A. Hartigan. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees from pairwise distributions on current species. In Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface, E. M. Keramidas, ed., Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station, VA, 1991, pp. 254-257.
8. 8. M. Steel, M. D. Hendy, and D. Penny. Invertible models of sequence evolution. Mathematical and Information Science report 93/02, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, September 1993.
9. 9. M. Steel, M. D. Hendy, and D. Penny. Reconstructing evolutionary trees from nucleotide pattern probabilities. Forschungsscherpunkt Mathematisierung-Strukturbildungsporozesse, Preprint XCIV, Bielefeld University, 1995.
10. 10. J. Pearl and M. Tarsi. Structuring causal trees. J. Complex., 2:60-77 (1986).
11. 11. D. Hendy. The relationship between simple evolutionary tree models and observable sequence data. Syst. Zool., 38:310-321 (1989).
12. 12. P. Lazarsfeld and N. Henry. Latent Structure Analysis. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1968.
13. 13. J. Felsenstein. Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool., 27:401-410 (1978).
14. 14. J. Felsenstein. Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps method for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Syst. Zool., 22:240-249 (1973).
15. 15. E. Sober. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.
16. 16. P. Buneman. The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 387-395.
17. 17. J. A. Cavender and J. Felsenstein. Invariants of phylogenies in a simple case with discrete states. J. Class., 4:57-71 (1987).
18. 18. J. Felsenstein. Statistical inference of phylogenies. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A, 146:246-272 (1983).
19. 19. D. Barry and J. A. Hartigan. Statistical analysis of hominoid molecular evolution. Statist. Sci., 2:191-210 (1987).
20. 20. H. Bandelt and A. Dress. Reconstructing the shape of a tree from observed dissimilarity data. Adv. Appl. Math., 7:309-343 (1986).
21. 21. A. Wald. Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate. Ann. Math. Statist., 20:595-601 (1949).