Empirical problems of the hierarchical likelihood tatio test for model selection

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 949-962

  Pol, Diego ^a  

^a DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hierarchical likelihood ratio test; Maximum likelihood; Model selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 12444319405     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490888868     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abt, K. 1967. On the identification of the significant independent variables in linear models. Metrika 12:1-15.
2. Bollback, J. P. 2002. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1171-1180.
3. Buckley, T. R., C. Simon, and G. K. Chambers. 2001. Exploring among-site rate variation models in a maximum likelihood framework using empirical data: Effects of model assumptions on estimates of topology, branch lengths, and bootstrap support. Syst. Biol. 50:67-86.
4. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference: A practical information theoretic approach. Springer, New York.
5. Burk, A., M. Westerman, and M. Springer. 1998. The phylogenetic position of the musky rat-kangaroo and the evolution of bipedal hopping in kangaroos (Macropodidae:Diprotodontia). Syst. Biol. 47:457-474.
6. Cannatella, D. C., D. M. Hillis, P. T. Chippindale, L. Weight, A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group with an examination of data incongruence. Syst. Biol. 47:311-335.
7. Chang, J. T. 1996. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math. Biosci. 134:189-215.
8. Copas, J. B. 1984. Discussion of Dr. Miller's paper. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 147:410-412.
9. Cox, D. R., and E. J. Snell. 1974. The choice of variables in observational studies. Appl. Stat. 23:51-59.
10. Cunningham, C. W., H. Zhu, and D. M. Hillis. 1998. Best maximum-likelihood models for phylogenetic inference:Empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978-987.
11. Draper, N. R., and H. Smith. 1998. Applied regression analysis, 3rd edition. Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
12. Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood, 2nd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
13. Edwards, A. W. F., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1964. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees. Pages 67-76 in Phenetic and phylogenetic classiécation (J. McNeill, ed.). Systematics Association Publication, London.
14. Efroymson, M. A. 1960. Multiple regression analysis. Pages 191-203 in Mathematical methods for digital computers (A. Ralston and H. S. Wilf, eds.). Wiley, New York.
15. Felsenstein, J. 1973. Maximum likelihood and minimum-steps methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Syst. Zool. 22:240-249.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
17. Felsenstein, J. 2002. Phylip ver. 3.6a3. Software package distributed by the author. Seattle, Washington, USA.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Giribet, G., and C. Ribera. 1998. The position of arthropods in the animal kingdom: A search for a reliable outgroup for internal arthropod phylogeny. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 9:481-488.
21. Goldman, N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
22. Goldman, N., and A. S. Whelan. 2000. Statistical tests of gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity in models of sequence evolution in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:975-978.
23. Goloboff, P. A. 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: Solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15:415-428.
24. Goloboff, P. A., J. S. Farris, and K. Nixon. 2000. TNT 1.0. Software and documentation distributed by the authors. San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina. Available at www.zmuc.dk/public/phylogeny.
25. Grant, T., and A. G. Kluge. 2003. Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: Scientific, heuristic, or neither. Cladistics 19:379-418.
26. Halanych, K. M. 1996. Testing hypotheses of chaetognath origin: Long branches revealed by 18S ribosomal DNA. Syst. Biol. 45:223-246.
27. Hamaker, H. C. 1962. On multiple regression analysis. Stat. Neerlandica 16:31-56.
28. 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.
29. Hedges, S. B., K. D. Moberg, and L. R. Maxson. 1990. Tetrapod phylogeny inferred from 18s and 28s ribosomal RNA sequences and a review of the evidence for amniote relationships. Mol. Biol. Evol. 7:607-633.
30. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and K. A. Crandall. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:437-466.
31. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, and M. E. Alfaro. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic model selection using reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1123-1133.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Kimura, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16:111-120.
35. Kimura, M. 1981. Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:454-458.
36. Kishino, H., and M. Hasegawa. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
37. Kuhner, M. K., and J. Felsenstein. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithmsunder equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:459-468.
38. Lundrigan, B. L., S. A. Jansa, and P. K. Tucker. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in the genus Mus, based on paternally, maternally, and biparentally inherited characters. Syst. Biol. 51:410-431.
39. Mantel, N. 1970. Why stepdown procedures in variable selection. Technometrics 12:621-625.
40. McCracken, K. G., J. Harshman, D. A. McClellan, and A. D. Afton. 1999. Data set incongruence and correlated character evolution:An example of functional convergence in the hind-limbs of stifftail diving ducks. Syst. Biol. 48:683-714.
41. Miller, A. J. 1984. Selection of subsets of regression variables. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 147:389-410.
42. Miller, A. J. 1990. Subset selection in regression. Chapman and Hall, New York.
43. Minin, V., Z. Abido, P. Joyce, and J. Sullivan. 2003. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52:674-683.
44. 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.
45. Muse, S. 1999. Modeling the molecular evolution of HIV sequences. Pages 122-152 in The evolution of HIV (K. A. Crandall, ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
46. Olsen, G. J., H. Matsuda, R. Hagstrom, and R. Overbeek. 1994. fastD-NAml: A tool for construction of phylogenetic trees of DNA sequences using maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 10:41-48.
47. 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.
48. Posada, D. 2003. Selecting a model of nucleotide substitution. Pages 6.5.1-6.5.14 in Current protocols in bioinformatics (A. D. Baxevanis et al., eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
49. Posada, D., and T. R. Buckley. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: Advantages of the AIC and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 53:793-808.
50. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. MODELTEST: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
51. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
52. Rodríguez, F., J. F. Oliver, A. Marín, and J. R. Medina. 1990. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J. Theor. Biol. 142:485-501.
53. Sanderson, M. J., and J. Kim. 2000. Parametric phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 49:817-829.
54. Soltis, D. E., P. S. Soltis, D. L. Nickrent, L. A. Johnson, W. J. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, J. A. Sweere, R. K. Kuzoff, K. A. Kron, M. W. Chase, S. M. Swensen, E. A. Zimmer, S.-M. Chaw, L. J. Gillespie, W. J. Kress, and K. J. Sytsma. 1997. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Ann. Miss. Bot. Gard. 84:1-49.
55. Springer, M. S., H. M. Amrine, A. Burk, and M. J. Stanhope. 1999. Additional support for Afrotheria and Paenungulata, the performance of mitochondrial versus nuclear genes, and the impact of data partitions with heterogeneous base composition. Syst. Biol. 48:65-75.
56. Stanhope, M. J., V. G. Waddell, O. Madsen, W. de Jong, S. B. Hedges, G. C. Cleven, D. Kao, and M. S. Springer. 1998. Molecular evidence for multiple origins of Insectivora and for a new order of endemic African insectivore mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:9967-9972.
57. Steel, M. A., and D. Penny. 2000. Parsimony, likelihood, and the role of models in molecular phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:839-850.
58. Suchard, M. A., R. E. Weiss, and J. S. Sinsheimer. 2002. Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1001-1013.
59. 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.
60. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 1997. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenetics. J. Mammal. Evol. 4:77-86.
61. Sullivan, J., D. L. Swofford, and G. J. P. Naylor. 1999. The effect of taxon sampling on estimating rate heterogeneity parameters of maximum likelihood models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1347-1356.
62. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP* 4.0 vers. b10. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
63. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogeny reconstruction. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics, 2nd edition (D. M. Hillis, C.Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
64. Tamura, K. 1994. Model selection in the estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:154-157.
65. Tamura, K., and M. Nei. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:512-526.
66. Tateno, Y., N. Takezaki, and M. Nei. 1994. Relative efficiencies of the maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum parsimony methods when the substitution rate varies with site. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:261-277.
67. Wayne, R. K., E. Geffen, D. J. Girman, K. P. Koepfli, L. M. Lau, and C. R. Marshall. 1997. Molecular systematics of the Canidae. Syst. Biol. 46:622-653.
68. Wilgenbusch, J., and K. de Queiroz. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among the phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogeneous evolutionary processes. Syst. Biol. 49:592-612.
69. Wojciechowski, M. F., M. J. Sanderson, and J.-M. Hu. 1999. Evidence on the monophyly of Astragalus (Fabaceae) and its major subgroups based on nuclear ribosomal dna its and chloroplast dna trnl intron data. Syst. Bot. 24:409-437.
70. Yang, Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: Approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
71. Yang, Z. 1997. PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:555-556.
72. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1995. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: A peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44:384-399.
73. Zhang, J. 1999. Performance of likelihood ratio tests of evolutionary hypotheses under inadequate substitution models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:868-875.
74. Zharkikh, A. 1994. Estimation of evolutionary distances between nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 39:315-329.