Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined?

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 733-740

  Cunningham, Clifford W ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditional combination; Incongruence tests; Known phylogenies; Phylogenetic accuracy

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA;

ARTICLE; CODON; DNA SEQUENCE; MITOCHONDRION; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VERTEBRATE;

VERTEBRATA;

EID: 0030816742     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025813     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. BARRETT, M., M. J. DONOGHUE, and E. SOBER. 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40:486-493.
2. BULL, J. J., J. P. HUELSENBECK, C. W. CUNNINGHAM, D. L. SWOFFORD, and P. J. WADELL. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
3. CUMMINGS, M. P., S. P. OTTO, and J. R. WAKELEY. 1995. Sampling properties of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:814-823.
4. CUNNINGHAM, C. W. 1997. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. (in press).
5. DE QUEIROZ, A. D. 1993. For consensus (sometimes). Syst. Biol. 42:368-372.
6. DE QUEIROZ, A. D., M. DONOGHUE, and J. KIM. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:657-681.
7. DESALLE, R., T. FREEDMAN, E. M. PRAGER, and A. C. WILSON. 1987. Tempo and mode of sequence evolution in mitochondrial DNA of Hawaiian Drosophila. J. Mol. Evol. 26:157-164.
8. FAITH, D. P. 1991. Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly. Syst. Zool. 40:366-375.
9. FARRIS, J. S., M. KÄLLERSJÖ, A. G. KLUGE, and C. BULT. 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315-319.
10. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
11. _. 1981. A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 16:183-196.
12. _. 1995. PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package). Version 3.5c. Distributed by the author, Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle.
13. GATESY, J., R. DESALLE, and W. C. WHEELER. 1993. Alignment-ambiguous nucleotide sites and the exclusion of systematic data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:152-157.
14. GRAYBEAL, A. 1994. Evaluating the phylogenetic utility of genes: a search for genes informative about deep divergences among vertebrates. Syst. Biol. 43:174-193.
15. HILLIS, D. M., J. HUELSENBECK, and C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1994. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264:671-676.
16. HOLMQUIST, R. 1983. Transitions and transversions in evolutionary descent. J. Mol. Evol. 19:134-144.
17. HUELSENBECK, J. P., and J. J. BULL. 1996. A likelihood ratio test to detect conflicting phylogenetic signal. Syst. Biol. 45:92-98.
18. HUELSENBECK, J. P., J. J. BULL, and C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. TREE 11:152-158.
19. KISHINO, H., and M. HASEGAWA. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
20. KJER, K. M. 1995. Use of rRNA secondary structure in phylogenetic studies to identify homologous positions: an example of alignment and data presentation from the frogs. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4:314-330.
21. KLUGE, A. J. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
22. LANYON, S. M. 1993. Phylogenetic frameworks: towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49:45-61.
23. LARSON, A. 1994. The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics. Pp. 371-390 in B. SCHIERWATER, B. STREIT, G. P. WAGNER, and R. DESALLE, eds. Molecular ecology and evolution: approaches and applications. Birkhauser Verlag, Berlin.
24. LUTZONI, F. 1997. Phylogeny of lichen- and non lichen-forming omphalinoid mushrooms and the utility of testing for combinability among multiple data sets. Syst. Biol. (in press).
25. LUTZONI, F., and R. VILGALYS. 1995. Integration of morphological and molecular data sets in estimating fungal phylogenies. Can. J. Bot. 73:S649-S659.
26. MADDISON, W. P., and D. R. MADDISON. 1992. MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 3.0. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.
27. MARSHALL, C. R. 1992. Substitution bias, weighted parsimony, and amniote phylogeny as inferred from 18S rRNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:370-373.
28. MICKEVICH, M. F., and J. S. FARRIS. 1981. The implications of congruence in Menidia. Syst. Zool. 30:351-370.
29. MIYAMOTO, M. M., and W. M. FITCH. .1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:64-76.
30. OLMSTEAD, R. G., and J. A. SWEERE. 1994. Combining data in phylogenetic systematics: an empirical approach using three molecular data sets in the Solanaceae. Syst. Biol. 43:467-481.
31. OMLAND, K. E. 1994. Character congruence between a molecular and a morphological phylogeny for dabbling ducks (Anas). Syst. Biol. 43:369-386.
32. PENNY, D., and M. D. HENDY. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34:75-82.
33. PRAGER, E. M., and A. C. WILSON. 1988. Ancient origin of lactalbumin from lysozyme: analysis of DNA and amino acid sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 27:326-335.
34. RODRIGO, A. G., M. KELLY-BORGES, P. R. BERGQUIST, and P. L. BERGQUIST, 1993. A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. N. Z. J. Bot. 31:257-268.
35. RUSSO, C., N. TAKEZAKI, and M. NEI. 1996. Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:525-536.
36. SIDDALL, M. 1996. Random cladistics. Version 4.0. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science (ftp.vims.edu), College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va.
37. SULLIVAN, J. 1996. Combining data with different distributions of among-site variation. Syst. Biol. 45:375-380.
38. SULLIVAN, J., K. E. HOLSINGER, and C. SIMON. 1995. Among-site variation and phylogenetic analysis of 12S rRNA in signomodontine rodents. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:988-1001.
39. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (PAUP* 4.0*). Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, (in press).
40. _. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? Pp. 295-333 in M. M. MIYAMOTO and J. CRACRAFT, eds. Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, New York.
41. TEMPLETON, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the humans and apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
42. WILLIAMS, P. L., and W. M. FTTCH. 1990. Phylogeny determination using dynamically weighted parsimony method. Methods Enzymol. 183:615-626.
43. YANG, Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.