Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution

Systematic Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 580-601

  Posada, David ^a   Crandall, Keith A ^a  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

AIC; BIC; Dynamic LRT; Hierarchical LRT; Likelihood ratio tests; Model selection; Substitution models

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMETRY; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; BASE SEQUENCE; BIOMETRY; DNA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0035527410     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150118469     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. ADACHI, J., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1995. Improved dating of the human/chimpanzee separation in the mitochondrial DNA tree: Heterogeneity among amino add sites. J. Mol. Evol. 40:622-628.
2. AKAIKE, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 19:716-723.
3. BRUNO, W. J., AND A. L. HALPERN. 1999. Topological bias and inconsistency of maximum likelihood using wrong models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:564-566.
4. BUCKLEY, T. R., C. SIMON, AND G. K. CHAMBERS. 2001. Exploring among-site rate variation models in a maximum likelihood framework using empirical data: The effects of model assumptions on estimates of topology, edge lengths, and bootstrap support. Syst. Biol. 50:67-86.
5. CUNNINCHAM, C. W., H. ZHU, AND D. M. HILLIS. 1998. Best-fit maximum-likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: Empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978-987.
6. EDWARDS, A. W. F., AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1964. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees. Pages 67-76 in Phenetic and phylogenetic classification (J. McNeill, ed.). Systematics Association Publication, London.
7. FARRIS, J. S. 1973. A probability model for inferring evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 22:250-256.
8. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1973. Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Syst. Zool. 22:240-249.
9. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
10. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
11. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1988. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 22:521-565.
12. FRATI, F., C. SIMON, J. SULLIVAN, AND D. L. SWOFFORD. 1997. Gene evolution and phylogeny of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase gene in Collembola. J. Mol. Evol. 44:145-158.
13. FUKAMI-KOBAYASHI, K., AND Y. TATENO. 1991. Robustness of maximum likelihood tree estimation against different patterns of base substitutions. J. Mol. Evol. 32:79-91.
14. GAUT, B. S., AND P. O. LEWIS. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:152-162.
15. GOLDMAN, N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
16. GOLDMAN, N., AND S. WHELAN. 2000. Statistical tests of gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity in models of sequence evolution in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:975-978.
17. HASEGAWA, M. 1990a. Mitochondrial DNA evolution in primates: Transition rate has been extremely low in the lemur. J. Mol. Evol. 31:113-121.
18. HASEGAWA, M. 1990b. Phylogeny and molecular evolution in primates. Jpn. J. Genet. 65:243-266.
19. HASEGAWA, M., K. KISHINO, AND T. YANO. 1985. Dating the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
20. HUELSENBECK, J. P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
21. HUELSENBECK, J. P., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:437-466.
22. HUELSENBECK, J. P., AND D. M. HILLIS. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
23. JUKES, T. H., AND C. R. CANTOR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. Pages 21-132 in Mammalian protein metabolism (H. M. Munro, ed.). Academic Press, New York.
24. KASS, R. E., AND L. WASSERMAN. 1994. A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwarz criterion. Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 16.
25. KELSEY, C. R., K. A. CRANDALL, AND A. F. VOEVODIN. 1999. Different models, different trees: The geographic origin of PTLV-I. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13:336-347.
26. KENDALL, M., AND STUART. 1979. The advanced theory of statistics. Charles Griffin, London.
27. KULLBACK, S., AND R. A. LEIBLER. 1951. On information and sufficiency. An. Math. Stat. 22:79-86.
28. MOROZOV, P., T. SITNIKOVA, G. CHURCHILL, F. J. AYALA, AND A. RZHETSKY. 2000. A new method for characterizing replacement rate variation in molecular sequences: Application of the Fourier and Wavelet models to Drosophila and mamalian proteins. Genetics 154:381-395.
29. MUSE, S. 1999. Modeling the molecular evolution of HIV sequences. Pages 122-152 in The evolution of HIV (K. A. Crandall, ed.). Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
30. OTA, R., P. J. WADDELL, M. HASEGAWA, H. SHIMODAIRA, AND H. KISHINO. 2000. Appropriate likelihood ratio tests and marginal distributions for evolutionary tree models with constraints on parameters. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:798-803.
31. PHILIPPE, H., AND A. GERMOT. 2000. Phylogeny of Eukaryotes based in ribosomal RNA: Long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:830-834.
32. POSADA, D., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 1998. Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
33. POSADA, D., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 2001. Simple (wrong) models for complex trees: Empirical bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:271-275.
34. RAMBAUT, A., AND N. C. GRASSLY. 1997. Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235-238.
35. RANNALA, B., AND Z. YANG. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: A new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 43:304-311.
36. RZHETSKY, A., AND M. NEI. 1995. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:131-151.
37. SAITOU, N., AND M. NEI. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406-425.
38. SCHWARZ, G. 1974. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6:461-464.
39. STEEL, M., AND D. PENNY. 2000. Parsimony, likelihood, and the role of models in molecular phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:839-850.
40. SULLIVAN, J., K. E. HOLSINGER, AND C. SIMON. 1996. The effect of topology on estimates of among-site rate variation. J. Mol. Evol. 42:308-312.
41. SULLIVAN, J., AND D. L. SWOFFORD. 1997. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenies. J. Mammal. Evol. 4:77-86.
42. SWOFFORD D. L., G. J. OLSEN, P. J. WADDELL and D. M. HILLS. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in molecular systematics (D. M. Hills, C. Moritz and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MA.
43. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1998. PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods. 4.0 beta. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
44. TAKEZAKI, N., AND T. GOJOBORI. 1999. Correct and incorrect vertebrate phylogenies obtained by the entire mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:590-601.
45. TAMURA, K. 1992. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G + C content biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:678-687.
46. TAMURA, K. 1994. Model selection in the estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:154-157.
47. TAVARÉ, S. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Pages 57-86 in Some mathematical questions in biology - DNA sequence analysis (R. M. Miura, ed.). Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI.
48. WAKELEY, J. 1994. Substitution-rate variation among sites and the estimation of transition bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:436-442.
49. WHELAN, S., AND N. GOLDMAN, 1999. Distributions of statistics used for the comparison of models of sequence evolution in phylogenetics Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1292-1299.
50. XIA, X. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among horseshoe crab species: Effect of substitution models in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 49:87-100.
51. YANG, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
52. YANG, Z. 1994a. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: Approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
53. YANG, Z. 1994b. Statistical properties of the maximum likelihood method of phylogenetic estimation and comparison with distance matrix methods. Syst. Biol. 43:329-342.
54. YANG, Z. 1996a. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. J. Mol. Evol. 42:294-307.
55. YANG, Z. 1996b. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:367-372.
56. YANG, Z. 1996c. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
57. YANG, Z. 1997a. PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:555-556.
58. YANG, Z. 1997b. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:105-108.
59. YANG, Z., N. GOLDMAN, AND A. FRIDAY. 1994. Comparison of models for nucleotide substitution used in maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:316-324.
60. YANG, Z., N. GOLDMAN, AND A. FRIDAY. 1995. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: A peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44:384-399.
61. YANG, Z., AND B. RANNALA. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: A Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:717-724.
62. ZHANG, J. 1999. Performance of likelihood ratio tests of evolutionary hypotheses under inadequate substitution models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:868-875.