Genetic algorithms and parallel processing in maximum-likelihood phylogeny inference

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 1717-1726

  Brauer, Matthew J ^a,c   Holder, Mark T ^b   Dries, Laurie A ^a,d   Zwickl, Derrick J ^a   Lewis, Paul O ^b   Hillis, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic algorithm; Maximum likelihood; Nucleotide sequence data; Parallel algorithm; Phylogeny inference

Indexed keywords

DNA; NUCLEOTIDE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MODEL; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION;

MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 0036790011     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003994     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Becker, D. J., T. Sterling, D. Savarese, J. E. Dorband, U. A. Ranawak, and C. V. Packer. 1995. Beowulf: a parallel workstation for scientific computation. Pp. 11-14 in T. Y. FENG, ed. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP), Vol. 1. CRC Press, Oconomowoc, Wis.
2. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press, London.
3. Goddard, W., E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, and F. R. McMorris. 1994. The agreement metric for labeled binary trees. Math. Biosci. 123:215-226.
4. Grimshaw, A. S., and W. A. Wulf. 1997. The Legion vision of a worldwide virtual computer. Comm. ACM 40:39-45.
5. Hasegawa, M., K. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating the human-ape split by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
6. Hillis, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:130-131.
7. -. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
8. Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
9. Hillis, D. M., J. P. Huelsenbeck, and D. L. Swofford. 1994. Hobgoblin of phylogenetics? Nature 369:363-364.
10. Huelsenbeck, J. P., D. M. Hillis, and R. Jones. 1995. Parametric bootstrapping in molecular phylogenetics: applications and performance. Pp. 19-45 in J. D. Ferraris and S. R. Palumbi, eds. Molecular zoology: advances, strategies, and protocols. Wiley-Liss, New York.
11. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
12. Larget, B., and D. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
13. Lecointre, G., H. Philippe, H. L. Van Le, and H. Le Guyader. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:205-224.
14. Lewis, P. O. 1998. A genetic algorithm for maximum-likelihood phylogeny inference using nucleotide sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:277-283.
15. Nei, M., S. Kumar, and K. Takahashi. 1998. The optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis tends to give incorrect topologies when the number of nucleotides or amino acids used is small. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:12390-12397.
16. Orr, H. A. 1998. The population genetics of adaptation: the distribution of factors fixed during adaptive evolution. Evolution 52:935-949.
17. Penny, D., and M. D. Hendy. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34:75-82.
18. Pollock, D. D., D. J. Zwickl, J. A. Mcguire, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51:590-597.
19. Rannala, B., and Z. H. Yang. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 43:304-311.
20. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
21. Rogers, J. S., and D. L. Swofford. 1998. A fast method for approximating maximum likelihoods of phylogenetic trees from nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:77-89.
22. Salter, L. A., and D. K. Pearl. 2001. Stochastic search strategy for estimation of maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 50:7-17.
23. Soltis, P. S., D. E. Soltis, P. G. Wolf, D. L. Nickrent, S. M. Chaw, and R. L. Chapman. 1999. The phylogeny of land plants inferred from 18S rDNA sequences: pushing the limits of rDNA signal? Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1774-1784.
24. Swofford, D. L. 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.
25. -. 2000. PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
26. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pp. 407-514 in D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds. Molecular systematics. 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
27. Wheeler, W. 1992. Extinction, sampling, and molecular phylogenetics. Pp. 205-215 in M. J. Novacek and Q. D. Wheeler, eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.
28. Zwickl, D. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:540-550.