Improvement of distance-based phylogenetic methods by a local maximum likelihood approach using triplets

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 1952-1963

  Ranwez, Vincent ^a   Gascuel, Olivier ^a  

^a LIRMM   (France)

Author keywords

Evolutionary distance; Maximum likelihood; Phylogenetic reconstruction; Triplet method

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIONJ ALGORITHM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FASTDNAML APPROACH; GENETIC ISOLATION BY DISTANCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; NEIGHBOR JOINING METHOD; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PROCESS MODEL; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; TIME; TOPOGRAPHY; TRIPLEML APPROACH; WEIGHBOR ALGORITHM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; POPULATION GENETICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETICS, POPULATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; SOFTWARE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0036855434     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004019     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bruno, W. J., N. D. Socci, and A. L. Halpern. 2000. Weighted neighbor joining: A likelihood-based approach to distance-based phylogeny reconstruction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:189-197.
2. Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
3. -. 1993. PHYLIP: Phylogeny inference package. Version 3.5c.
4. Gascuel, O. 1994. A note on Sattah and Tversky's, Saitou and Nei's, and Studier and Keppler's algorithms for inferring phylogenies from evolutionary distances. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:961-963.
5. -. 1997a. BIONJ: An improved version of the NJ algorithm based on a simple model of sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:685-695.
6. -. 1997b. Concerning the NJ algorithm and its unweighted version, UNJ. Pp. 149-170 in B. Mirkin, F. R. McMorris, F. S. Roberts, and A. Rzhetsky, eds. Mathematical Hierarchies and Biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.
7. -. 2000. Evidence for a relationship between algorithmic scheme and shape of inferred trees. Pp. 157-168 in W. Gaul, O. Opitz, and M. Schader, eds. Data Analysis, Scientific Modeling and Practical Applications. Springer, Berlin.
8. Guindon, S., and O. Gascuel. 2002. Efficient biased estimation of evolutionary distances when substitution rates vary across sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:534-543.
9. Harding, E. F. 1971. The probabilities of rooted-tree shapes generated by random bifurcation. Adv. Appl. Probab. 3:44-77.
10. Kimura, M. 1981. Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:454-458.
11. Kuhner, M. K., and J. Felsenstein. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:459-468.
12. Kumar, S. 1996. A stepwise algorithm for finding minimum evolution trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:584-593.
13. Lanave, C., G. Preparata, C. Saccone, and G. Serio. 1984. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J. Mol. Appl. Genet. 20:86-93.
14. Nei, M. 1991. Relative efficiencies of different tree-making methods for molecular data. Pp. 90-128 in M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft, eds. Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Olsen, G. J., H. Matsuda, R. Hagstrom, and R. Overbeek. 1994. FastDNAml: A tool for construction of phylogenetic trees of DNA sequences using maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 10:41-48.
16. Ota, S., and W. H. Li. 2000. NJML: A hybrid algorithm for the neighbor-joining and maximum-likelihood methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1401-1409.
17. Press, W. H., B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling. 1988. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
18. 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.
19. Ranwez, V., and O. Gascuel. 2001. Quartet-based phylogenetic inference: Improvements and limits. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1103-1116.
20. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
21. Saitou, N., and M. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406-425.
22. Sattah, S., and A. Tversky. 1977. Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika 42:319-345.
23. Strimmer, K., and A. Von Haeseler. 1996. Quartet puzzling: A quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:964-969.
24. Studier, J. A., and K. J. Keppler. 1988. A note on the neighbor-joining algorithm of Saitou and Nei. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:729-731.
25. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pp. 407-509 in M. D. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds. Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
26. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
27. 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.
28. Yule, G. 1925. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 213:21-87.