How Meaningful Are Bayesian Support Values?

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 188-199

  Simmons, Mark P ^a   Pickett, Kurt M ^b,d   Miya, Masaki ^c  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM AND INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^d DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ayesian phylogenetic inference; Bootstrap support; Branch support; Jackknife support; Parsimony; Posterior probabilities

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; FISH; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MITOCHONDRIAL GENETICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY; TAXONOMY; TELEOST;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; FISHES; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

PISCES; TELEOSTEI;

EID: 1242352069     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh014     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Alfaro, M. E., S. Zoller, and F. Lutzoni. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and boot-strapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:255-266.
3. Baker, R. H., G. S. Wilkinson, and R. DeSalle. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of different types of molecular data used to infer evolutionary relationships among stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Syst. Biol. 50:87-105.
4. Berry, V., and O. Gascuel. 1996. On the interpretation of bootstrap trees: appropriate threshold of clade selection and induced gain. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:999-1011.
5. Cummings, M. P., S. A. Handley, D. S. Myers, D. L. Reed, A. Rokas, and K. Winka. 2003. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 52:477-487.
6. Cummings, M. P., S. P. Otto, and J. Wakeley. 1995. Sampling properties of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:814-822.
7. Devore, J., and R. Peck. 1993. Statistics: the exploration and analysis of data. 2nd edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, Calif.
8. Douady, C. J., F. Delsuc, Y. Boucher, W. F. Doolittle, and E. J. P. Douzery. 2003. Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:248-254.
9. Efron, B., E. Halloran, and S. Holmes. 1996. Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:13429-13434.
10. Faith, D. P., and J. W. O. Ballard. 1994. Length differences and topology-dependent tests: a response to Källersjö et al. Cladistics 10:57-64.
11. Farris, J. S., V. A. Albert, M. Källersjö, D. Lipscomb, and A. G. Kluge. 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12:99-124.
12. Felsenstein, J. 1973. Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Syst. Zool. 22:240-249.
13. -. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
14. Felsenstein, J., and H. Kishino. 1993. Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on pylogenies? A reply to Hillis and Bull. Syst. Biol. 42:193-200.
15. Gatesy, J. 2000. Linked branch support and tree stability. Syst. Biol. 49:800-807.
16. Goloboff, P. A. 1993. NONA (NO NAME). Published by the author, Tucumán, Argentina.
17. Harshman, J. 1994. The effect of irrelevant characters on bootstrap values. Syst. Biol. 43:419-424.
18. Holder, M., and P. O. Lewis. 1993. Phylogenetic estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4:275-284.
19. Hillis, D. M. 1999. Phylogenetics and the study of HIV. Pp. 105-121 in K. A. Crandall, ed. The evolution of HIV. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
20. Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
21. Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255:589-592.
22. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and K. A. Crandall. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:437-466.
23. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, R. E. Miller, and F. Ronquist. 2002. Potential applications and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:673-688.
24. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
25. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
26. Inoue, J. G., M. Miya, K. Tsukamoto, and M. Nishida. 2001. A mitogenomic perspective on the basal teleostean phylogeny: resolving higher-level relationships with longer DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 20:275-282.
27. Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis for relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
28. Larget, B., and D. L. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
29. Leaché, A. D., and T. W. Reeder. 2002. Molecular systematics of the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): a comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches. Syst. Biol. 51:44-68.
30. 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.
31. Lemmon, A. R., and M. C. Milinkovitch. 2002. The metapopulations genetic algorithm: an efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 99:10516-10521.
32. Mau, B., M. A. Newton, and B. Larget. 1999. Bayesian phylogenetic inference via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Biometrics 55:1-12.
33. Miller, J. A. 2003. Assessing progress in systematics with continuous jackknife function analysis. Syst. Biol. 52:55-65.
34. Miller, R. E., T. R. Buckley, and P. S. Manos. 2002. An examination of the monophyly of morning glory taxa using Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51:740-753.
35. Miya, M., A. Kawaguchi, and M. Nishida. 2001. Mitogenomic exploration of higher teleostean phylogenies: a case study for moderate-scale evolutionary genomics with 38 newly determined complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1993-2009.
36. Miya, M., and M. Nishida. 2000. Use of mitogenomic information in teleostean molecular phylogenetics: a tree-based exploration under the maximum-parsimony optimality criterion. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:437-455.
37. Miya, M., H. Takeshima, H. Endo et al. (12 co-authors). 2003. Major patterns of higher teleostean phylogenies: a new perspective based on 100 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 26:121-138.
38. Mort, M. E., P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and M. L. Mabry. 2000. Comparison of three methods of estimating internal support on phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 49:160-171.
39. Nixon, K. C. 2002. WinClada. Published by the author, Ithaca, New York.
40. Nixon, K. C., and J. M. Carpenter. 1996. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 12:221-242.
41. Poe, S. 1998. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxonomic sampling. Syst. Biol. 47:18-31.
42. Pollock, D. D., and W. J. Bruno. 2000. Assessing an unknown evolutionary process: effect of increasing site-specific knowledge through taxon addition. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1854-1858.
43. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
44. -. 2001. Selecting models of nucleotide substitution: an application to human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1). Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:897-906.
45. Rannala, B., and Z. Yang. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 43:304-311.
46. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
47. Rodrigo, A. G. 1993. Calibrating the bootstrap test of monophyly. Int. J. Parasitol. 23:507-514.
48. Salamin, N., M. W. Chase, T. R. Hodkinson, and V. Savolainen. 2003. Assessing internal support with large phylogenetic DNA matrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol, 27:528-539.
49. Sanderson, M. J. 1995. Objections to bootstrapping phylogenies: a critique. Syst. Biol. 44:299-320.
50. Sanderson, M. J., and J. Kim. 2000. Parametric phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 49:817-829.
51. Sanderson, M. J., and M. F. Wojciechowski. 2000. Improved bootstrap confidence limits in large-scale phylogenies, with an example from Neo-Astragalus (Leguminosae). Syst. Biol. 49:671-685.
52. Shevchuk, N. A., and M. W. Allard. 2001. Sources of incongruence among mammalian mitochondrial sequences: COII, COIII and ND6 genes are main contributors. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21:43-54.
53. Simmons, M. P., and J. V. Freudenstein. 2003. The effects of increasing genetic distance on alignment of, and tree construction from, rDNA internal transcribed spacer sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 26:444-451.
54. Suzuki, Y., G. V. Glazko, and M. Nei. 2002. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:16138-16143.
55. Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parssimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
56. Whittingham, L. A., B. Slikas, D. W. Winkler, and F. H. Sheldon. 2002. Phylogeny of the tree swallow genus, Tachycineta (Aves: Hirundinidae), by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22:430-441.
57. Wilcox, T. P., D. J. Zwickl, T. A. Heath, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25:361-371.
58. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
59. Yang, Z., and B. Rannala. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:717-724.
60. Zharkikh, A., and W.-H. Li. 1992. Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. I. Four taxa with a molecular clock. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:1119-1147.
61. -. 1995. Estimation of confidence in phylogeny: the complete-and-partial bootstrap technique. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4:44-63.