Missing the forest for the trees: Phylogenetic compression and its implications for inferring complex evolutionary histories

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 146-157

  Ané, Cécile ^a,b   Sanderson, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

Author keywords

Compression; Information; Kolmogorov complexity; Phylogenetics; Total evidence

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 15944396106     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150590905984     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Allison, L., D. Powell, and T. I. Dix. 1999. Compression and approximate matching. Comp. J. 42:1-10.
2. Allison, L., L. Stern, T. Edgoose, and T. I. Dix. 2000. Sequence complexity for biological sequence analysis. Computers and Chemistry 24:43-55.
3. Allison, L., and C. N. Yee. 1990. Minimum message length encoding and the comparison of macromolecules. Bull. Math. Biol. 52:431-453.
4. Aris-Brosou, S. 2003. Least and most powerful tests to elucidate the origin of the seed plants in the presence of conflicting signals under misspecified models. Syst. Biol. 52:781-793.
5. Bapteste, E., H. Brinkmann, J. A. Lee, D. V. Moore, C. W. Sensen, P. Gordon, L. Durufle, T. Gaasterland, P. Lopez, M. Muller, and H. Philippe. 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1414-1419.
6. Barker, F. K., and F. M. Lutzoni. 2002. Utility of the incongruence length difference test. Syst. Biol. 51:625-637.
7. Bergthorsson, U., K. L. Adams, B. Thomason, and J. D. Palmer. 2003. Widespread horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes in flowering plants. Nature 424:197-201.
8. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. Gittleman, and M. Steel. 2002. The (super)tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:265-290.
9. Bull, J. J., J. P. Huelsenbeck, C. W. Cunningham, D. L. Swofford, and P. J. Waddell. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
10. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference. Springer, New York.
11. Cheeseman, P., and B. Kanefsky. 1993. The reconstruction of evolutionary trees using minimal description length. Pages 91-100 in Advances in computer methods for systematic biology: Artificial intelligence, databases, computer vision (R. Fortuner, ed.). Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
12. Chen, X., M. Li, B. Ma, and J. Tromp. 2002. DNACompress: Fast and effective DNA sequence compression. Bioinformatics (Oxford) 18:1696-1698.
13. Cover, T. M., and J. A. Thomas. 1991. Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
14. Cronn, R., and J. F. Wendel. 2003. Cryptic trysts, genomic mergers, and plant speciation. New Phytologist 161:133-142.
15. Cunningham, C. W. 1997a. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:733-740.
16. Cunningham, C. W. 1997b. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 46:464-478.
17. Darlu, P., and G. Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:432.
18. Day, W. H. E. 1983. The role of complexity in comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 66:97-114.
19. de Queiroz, A., M. J. Donoghue, and J. Kim. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:657-681.
20. Dolphin, K., R. Belshaw, C. D. L. Orme, and D. L. J. Quicke. 2000. Noise and incongruence: Interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:401-406.
21. Donoghue, M. J., and J. A. Doyle. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny: demise of the anthophyte hypothesis? Curr. Biol. 10:R106-R109.
22. Doyle, J. J., J. L. Doyle, J. T. Rauscher, and A. H. D. Brown. 2003. Diploid and polyploid reticulate evolution throughout the history of the perennial soybeans (Glycine subgenus Glycine). New Phytologist 161:121-132.
23. Edwards, A. W. F., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1964. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees. Pages 67-76 in Phenetic and phylogenetic classification (V. H. Heywood and J. McNeill, eds.). Systematics Association Publication, London.
24. Farris, J. S. 1979. The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 28:483-519.
25. Farris, J. S. 1980. THe efficient diagnoses of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 29:386-401.
26. Farris, J. S., M. Kallersjo, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315-319.
27. Farris, J. S., M. Kallersjo, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1995. Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44:570-572.
28. Felsenstein, J. 2001. The troubled growth of statistical phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 50:465-467.
29. Hein, J. 1990. Reconstructing evolution of sequences subject to recombination using parsimony. Math. Biosci. 98:185-200.
30. Hein, J. 1993. A heuristic methdo to reconstruct the history of sequences subject to recombination. J. Mol. Evol. 36:396-405.
31. Hipp, A. L., J. C. Hall, and K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Congruence versus accuracy: Revisiting the incongruence length difference test. Syst. Biol. 53:81-89.
32. Holland, B. R., K. T. Huber, V. Moulton, and P. J. Lockhart. 2004. Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1459-1461.
33. Huelsenbeck, J. P., J. J. Bull, and C. W. Cunningham. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:152-158.
34. Kitching, I. J., P. L. Forey, C. J. Humphries, and D. Williams. 1998. Cladistics: The theory and practice of parsimony analysis, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, New York.
35. Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
36. Kluge, A. G., and A. J. Wolf. 1993. Cladistics: What's in a word? Cladistics 9:183-199.
37. Kurland, C. G., B. Canback, and O. G. Berg. 2003. Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:9658-9662.
38. Lerat, E., V. Daubin, and A. Moran. 2003. From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: The case of the gamma-Proteobactera. PLoS Biol. 1:1-9.
39. Li, M., J. Badger, X. Chen, S. Kwong, P. Kearney, and H. Y. Zhang. 2001. An information based distance and its application to whole mitochondrial genome phylogeny. Bioinformatics (Oxford) 17:149-154.
40. Li, M., J. Tromp, and L. Zhang. 1996. On the nearest neighbor interchange distance between evolutionary trees. J. Theor. Biol. 182:463-467.
41. Li, M., and P. Vitanyi. 1997. An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.
42. Magallon, S., and M. J. Sanderson. 2002. Relationships among seed plants inferred from highly conserved genes: Sorting conflicting phylogenetic signals among ancient lineages. Am. J. Bot. 89:1991-2006.
43. Milosavljevic, A., D. Haussler, and J. Jurka. 1990. Clustering of macro-molecular sequences by minimal length encoding. Pages 90-94 in Artificial intelligence and molecular biology: Working notes, Stanford University.
44. Murphy, W. J., E. Eizirik, W. E. Johnson, Y. P. Zhang, O. A. Ryder, and S. J. O'Brien. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-618.
45. Nixon, K. C., and J. M. Carpenter. 1996. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 12:221-241.
46. Otu, H. H., and K. Sayood. 2003. A new sequence distance measure for phylogenetic tree construction. Bioinformatics (Oxford) 19:2122-2130.
47. Page, R. D. M. 1993. COMPONENT user's manual (version 2.0). Trustees of The Natural History Museum, London.
48. Page, R. D. M. 1996. On consensus, confidence and "total" evidence. Cladistics 12:83-92.
49. Page, R. D. M., and M. A. Charleston. 1997. From gene to organismal phylogeny: Reconciled trees and the gene tree/species tree problem. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7:231-240.
50. Ren, F., H. Tanaka, and T. Gojobori. 1995. Construction of molecular evolutionary phylogenetic trees from DNA sequences based on minimum complexity principle. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 46:121-130.
51. Rokas, A., B. Williams, N. King, and S. Carroll. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804.
52. Rydin, C., M. Kallersjo, and E. M. Friis. 2002. Seed plant relationships and the systematic position of Gnetales based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA: Conflicting data, rooting problems and the monophyly of conifers. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163:197-214.
53. Sanderson, M. J., A. C. Driskell, R. H. Ree, O. Eulenstein, and S. Langley. 2003. Obtaining maximal concatenated phylogenetic data sets from large sequence databases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:1036-1042.
54. Sanderson, M. J., M. F. Wojciechowski, J. M. Hu, T. S. Khan, and S. G. Brady. 2000. Error, bias, and long-branch attraction in data for two chloroplast photosystem genes in seed plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:782-797.
55. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York.
56. Thornton, J. W, and R. De Salle. 2000. A new method to localize and test the significance of incongruence: detecting domain shuffling in the nuclear receptor subfamily. Syst. Biol. 49:183-201.
57. Vogl, C., J. Badger, P. Kearney, M. Li, M. Clegg, and T. Jian. 2003. Probabilistic analysis indicates discordant gene trees in chloroplast evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 56:330-340.
58. Willson, S. J. 1999. A higher order parsimony method to reduce long-branch attraction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:694-705.
59. Yoder, A. D., J. A. Irwin, and B. A. Payseur. 2001. Failure of the ILD to determine data combinability for slow loris phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 50:408-424