Dynamically Heterogenous Partitions and Phylogenetic Inference: An Evaluation of Analytical Strategies with Cytochrome b and ND6 Gene Sequences in Cranes

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 302-313

  Krajewski, Carey ^a   Fain, Matthew G ^a   Buckley, Larry ^b   King, David G ^a,c  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME B; REDUCED NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE DEHYDROGENASE;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BIRDS; CYTOCHROME B GROUP; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LINEAR MODELS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; NADH DEHYDROGENASE; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0033219088     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/mpev.1999.0646     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Archibald G. W. Crane taxonomy as revealed by the unison call. Lewis J. C. Proceedings of the International Crane Workshop. 1976;225-251 Oklahoma State Univ. Stillwater.
2. Armstrong L. A., Krajewski C., Westerman M. Phylogeny of the dasyurid marsupial genus Antechinus based on cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, and protamine P1 genes. J. Mammal. 79:1998;1379-1389.
3. Bull J. J., Huelsenbeck J. P., Cunningham C. W., Swofford D. L., Waddell P. J. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:1993;384-397.
4. Chippindale P. T., Wiens J. J. Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;278-287.
5. de Queiroz A., Donoghue M. J., Kim J. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:1995;657-681.
6. DeSalle R., Brower A. V. Z. Process partitions, congruence, and the independence of characters: Inferring relationships among closely related Hawaiian Drosophila from multiple gene regions. Syst. Biol. 46:1997;751-764.
7. Dessauer H. C., Gee G. F., Rogers J. S. Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of Sandhill, Sarus, Siberian, and Whooping cranes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:1992;279-288.
8. Felsenstein J. Methods for inferring phylogenies: A statistical view. Felsenstein J. Numerical Taxonomy. 1983;315-334 Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
9. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 39:1985;783-791.
10. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inference and reliability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 22:1988;521-565.
11. Felsenstein, J. 1993, PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package). Distributed by the author, Department of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
12. Fitch W. M. A hidden bias in the estimate of total nucleotide substitutions from pairwise differences. Karlin S., Nevo E. Evolutionary Processes and Theory. 1986;315-328 Academic Press, Orlando.
13. Fitch W. M., Margoliash E. Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science. 155:1967;279-284.
14. Goldman N. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:1993;182-198.
15. Graur D., Hide W. A., Li W.-H. Is the guinea pig a rodent. Nature. 315:1991;649-652.
16. Huelsenbeck J. P. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:1995a;17-48.
17. Huelsenbeck J. P. The robustness of two phylogenetic methods: Four-taxon simulations reveal a slight superiority of maximum likelihood over neighbor joining. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:1995b;843-849.
18. Huelsenbeck J. P., Crandall K. A. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:1997;437-466.
19. Huelsenbeck J. P., Swofford D. L., Cunningham C. W., Bull J. J., Waddell P. J. Is character weighting a panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;288-291.
20. Huelsenbeck J. P., Bull J. J., Cunningham C. W. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;152-158.
21. Ingold J. L., Guttman S. I., Osborne D. O. Biochemical systematics and evolution of the cranes (Aves:Gruidae). Archibald G. W., Pasquier R. F. Proceedings of the 1983 International Crane Workshop. 1987;575-584 International Crane Foundation, Baraboo.
22. Ingold J. L., Vaughn J. C., Guttman S. I., Maxson L. R. Phylogeny of the cranes (Aves:Gruidae) as deduced from DNA-DNA hybridization and albumin microcomplement fixation. Auk. 106:1989;595-602.
23. Jin L., Nei M. Limitations of the evolutionary parsimony method of phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 7:1990;82-102.
24. Jukes T. H., Cantor C. R. Evolution of protein molecules. Munro H. N. Mammalian Protein Metabolism. 1969;21-132 Academic Press, New York.
25. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitution through comparative study of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16:1980;111-120.
26. Kishino H., Hasegawa M. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:1989;170-179.
27. Kluge A. G. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:1989;7-25.
28. Krajewski C. Phylogenetic relationships among cranes (Gruiformes:Gruidae) based on DNA hybridization. Auk. 106:1989;603-618.
29. Krajewski C., Fetzner J. W. Phylogeny of cranes (Gruiformes: Gruidae) based on cytochrome-b DNA sequences. Auk. 111:1994;351-365.
30. Krajewski C., Wood T. C. Mitochondrial DNA relationships within the Sarus Crane species group (Gruiformes: Gruidae). Emu. 95:1995;99-105.
31. Krajewski C., King D. G. Molecular divergence and phylogeny: Rates and patterns of cytochrome b evolution in cranes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:1996;21-30.
32. Krajewski C., Blacket M., Buckley L., Westerman M. A multigene assessment of phylogenetic relationships in the dasyurid marsupial subfamily Sminthopsinae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8:1997a;236-248.
33. Krajewski C., Young J., Buckley L., Woolley P. A., Westerman M. Reconstructing the evolutionary radiation of dasyurine marsupials with cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, and protamine gene trees. J. Mammal. Evol. 4:1997b;217-236.
34. Kumar, S, Tamura, K, and, Nei, M. 1993, MEGA: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis, Version 1.01, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
35. Lanave C., Preparata G., Saccone C., Serio G. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Evol. 20:1984;86-93.
36. Lanyon S. Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49:1993;45-61.
37. Miyamoto M. M., Fitch W. M. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:1995;64-76.
38. Moore W. S., DeFilippis V. R. The window of taxonomic resolution for phylogenies based on mitochondrial cytochrome b. Mindell D. P. Avian Molecular Systematics. 1997;83-119 Academic Press, San Diego.
39. Moum T., Johansen S. The mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 6 (ND6) gene in murres: Relevance to phylogenetic and population studies among birds. Genome. 35:1992;903-906.
40. Nunn G. B., Cooper J., Jouventin P., Robertson C. J. R., Robertson G. G. Evolutionary relationships among extant albatrosses (Procellariiformes: Diomedeidae) established from complete cytochrome-b gene sequences. Auk. 113:1996;784-801.
41. Saitou N., Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:1987;406-425.
42. Slade R. W., Moritz C., Heideman A. Multiple nuclear-gene phylogenies: Application to pinnipeds and comparison with a mitochondrial DNA gene phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:1994;341-356.
43. Sober E. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Likelihood, and Cladistics. 1988;MIT Press, Cambridge.
44. Sullivan J. Combining data with different distributions of among-site rate variation. Syst. Biol. 45:1996;375-380.
45. Sullivan J., Swofford D. L. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenetics. J. Mammal. Evol. 4:1997;77-86.
46. Swofford D. L. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent. Miyamoto M. M., Cracraft J. Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences. 1991;295-333 Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
47. Swofford D. L., Olsen G. J., Waddell P. J., Hillis D. M. Phylogenetic inference. Hillis D. M., Moritz C., Mable B. K. Molecular Systematics. 1996;407-514 Sinauer, Sunderland.
48. Tateno Y., Takezaki N., Nei M. Relative efficiencies of the maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum parsimony methods when substitution rate varies with site. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:1994;261-277.
49. Wakeley J. Substitution-rate variation among sites and the estimation of transition bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:1994;436-442.
50. Wood D. S. Phenetic relationships within the family Gruidae. Wilson Bull. 91:1979;384-399.
51. Wood T. C., Krajewski C. Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation among the subspecies of Sarus Crane (Grus antigone). Auk. 113:1996;655-663.
52. Yang Z. Statistical properties of the maximum likelihood method of phylogenetic estimation and comparison with distance matrix methods. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;329-342.
53. Yang Z. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. J. Mol. Evol. 42:1996;294-307.
54. Yang Z., Goldman N., Friday A. Comparison of models for nucleotide substitution used in maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:1994;316-324.