Designing fast converging phylogenetic methods

Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2001, Pages

  Nakhleh, Luay ^a   Roshan, Usman ^a   John, Katherine St ^b   Sun, Jerry ^a   Warnow, Tandy ^a  

^a University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC PROCEDURES; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, GENETIC; GENETIC TECHNIQUES; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 0035229987     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 13674811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.suppl_1.S190     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Atteson, K. (1999). The performance of the neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Algorithmica 25, 251-278.
2. Bininda-Edmonds, O., S. Brady, J. Kim, and M. Sanderson (2001). Scaling of accuracy in extremely large phylogenetic trees. In Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB01), pp. 547-557.
3. Bruno, W., N. Socci, and A. L. Halpern (2000). Weighted neighbor joining: A likelihood-based approach to distance-based phylogeny reconstruction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17(1), 189-197.
4. Condor (Copyright 1990-2001). Condor high throughput computing program. Developed at the Computer Sciences Department of the University of Wisconsin; http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/.
5. Csu′rös, M. (2001). Fast recovery of evolutionary trees with thousands of nodes. To appear in RECOMB 2001.
6. 2logL) - time accurate recovery of evolutionary trees with more than one thousand leaves: an experimental combination of harmonic greedy triplets and the minimum evolution principle. Preprint, Yale U.
7. Erdos, P., M. Steel, L. Székély, and T. Warnow (1997). A few logs suffice to build almost all trees -I. Random Structures and Algorithms 14, 153-184.
8. Erdos, P., M. Steel, L. Székély, and T. Warnow (1999). A few logs suffice to build almost all trees -II. Theor. Comp. Sci. 221, 77-118.
9. Felsenstein, J. (1978). Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27, 401-410.
10. Fitch, W. M. (1971). Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specified tree topology. Syst. Zool. 20, 406-416.
11. Hillis, D. M. (1996). Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383, 130-131.
12. Hillis, D. M., C. Moritz, and B. Mable (1996). Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Pub., Boston.
13. Huelsenbeck, J. (1995). Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44, 17-48.
14. Huelsenbeck, J. and D. Hillis (1993). Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42, 247-264.
15. Huson, D. (1998). SplitsTree: A program for analyzing and visualizing evolution data. Bioinformatics 14(10), 68-73.
16. Huson, D., S. Nettles, and T. Warnow (1999a). Disk-covering, a fast-converging method for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Comput. Biol. 6, 369-386.
17. Huson, D., L. Vawter, and T. Warnow (1999b). Solving large scale phylogenetic problems using DCM2. In ISMB99, pp. 118-129.
18. Jukes, T. H. and C. Cantor (1969). Mammalian protein metabolism. (21-132).
19. Kimura, M. (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16, 111-120.
20. Kuhner, K. and J. Felsenstein (1994). A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11, 459-468.
21. Li, W. H. (1997). Molecular Evolution. Sinauer, Massachuesetts.
22. Maidak, B. et al (2000). The RDP (ribosomal database project) continues. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 173-174.
23. McGeoch, C. C. (1992). Analyzing algorithms by simulation: variance reduction techniques and simulation speedups. ACM Comp. Surveys 24, 195-212.
24. Moret, B. M. E. (2001). Towards a discipline of experimental algorithmics. To appear in Monograph in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science; http://www.cs.unm.edu/moret/dimacs.ps.
25. Rambaut, A. and N. C. Crassly (1997). Seq-gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of dna sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 13, 235-238.
26. Rice, K., M. Donoghue, and R. Olmstead (1997). Analyzing large datasets: rbcL 500 revisited. Systematic Biology.
27. Robinson, D. F. and L. R. Foulds (1981). Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Mathematical Biosciences 53, 131-147.
28. Sautou, N. and M. Nei (1987). The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406-425.
29. Steel, M. A. (1994a). The maximum likelihood point for a phylogenetic tree is not unique. Systematic Biology 43(4), 560-564.
30. Steel, M. A. (1994b). Recovering a tree from the leaf colourations it generates under a Markov model. Appl. Math. Lett. 7, 19-24.
31. Swofford, D. L. (1996). PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Underland, Massachusetts, Version 4.0.
32. Warnow, T., B. M. Moret, and K. S. John (2001). Absolute convergence: true trees from short sequences. Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 01), 186-195.