Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: A new statistical test

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 914-924

  Ané, Cécile ^a,b   Burleigh, J Gordon ^a   McMahon, Michelle M ^a   Sanderson, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

Author keywords

Covarion; Model testing; Parametric bootstrap; Plastid genome evolution

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; CODON; COVARION MODEL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENE; GENE STRUCTURE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PLASTID; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CODON; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENOME; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PLASTIDS;

EID: 16344379182     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msi076     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Dondoshansky, I. 2002. Blastclust (NCBI Software Development Toolkit). NCBI, Bethesda, Md.
2. Fitch, W. M. 1971. Rate of change of concomitantly variable codons. J. Mol. Evol. 1:84-96.
3. Fitch, W. M., and E. Markowitz. 1970. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem. Genet. 4:579-593.
4. Galtier, N. 2001. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:866-873.
5. Goldman, N., and S. Whelan. 2000. Statistical tests of gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity in models of sequence evolution in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:975-978.
6. Goremykin, V. V., K. I. Hirsch-Ernst, S. Wölfl, and F. H. Hellwig. 2003. Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome suggests that Amborella is not a basal angiosperm. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:1499-1505.
7. -. 2004. The chloroplast genome of Nymphaea alba: whole-genome analyses and the problem of identifying the most basal angiosperm. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1445-1454.
8. Hasegawa, M., H. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 21:160-174.
9. Holder, M., and P. O. Lewis. 2003. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4:275-284.
10. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:698-707.
11. Huelsenbeck, J. P., D. M. Hillis, and R. Jones. 1996. 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.
12. Jukes, T. H., and C. R. Cantor. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. Pp. 21-132 in H. N. Manro, ed. Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York.
13. Kelly, C., and J. Rice. 1996. Modeling nucleotide evolution: a heterogeneous rate analysis. Math. Biosci. 133:85-109.
14. Kimura, M. 1981. Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:454-458.
15. Liò, P., and N. Goldman. 1998. Models of molecular evolution and phylogeny. Genome Res. 8:1233-1244.
16. Lockhart, P. J., D. Huson, U. Maier, M. J. Fraunholz, Y. Van de Peer, A. C. Barbrook, C. J. Howe, and M. A. Steel. 2000. How molecules evolve in eubacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:835-838.
17. Lockhart, P. J., M. A. Steel, A. C. Barbrook, D. H. Huson, M. A. Charleston, and C. J. Howe. 1998. A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:1183-1188.
18. Lopez, P., P. Forterre, and H. Philippe. 1999. The root of the tree of life in the light of the covarion model. J. Mol. Evol. 49:496-508.
19. Misof, B., C. L. Anderson, T. R. Buckley, D. Erpenbeck, A. Rickert, and K. Misof. 2002. An empirical analysis of mt 16S rRNA covarion-like evolution in insects: site-specific rate variation is clustered and frequently detected. J. Mol. Evol. 56:330-340.
20. Miyamoto, M. M., and W. M. Fitch. 1995. Testing the covarion hypothesis of molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:503-513.
21. 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.
22. Penny, D., B. J. McCormish, M. A. Charleston, and M. D. Hendy. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 53:711-723.
23. Philippe, H., and A. Germot. 2000. Phylogeny of eukaryotes based on ribosomal RNA: long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:830-834.
24. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 2001. A comparison of different strategies for selecting models of DNA substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
25. Pryer, K. M., H. Schneider, E. A. Zimmer, and J. A. Banks. 2002. Deciding among green plants for whole genome studies. Trends Plant Sci. 7:550-554.
26. 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.
27. Sanderson, M. J. 2003. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19:301-302.
28. Self, S. G., and K.-Y. Liang. 1987. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82:605-610.
29. Shoemaker, J. S., and W. M. Fitch. 1989. Evidence from nuclear sequences that invariable sites should be considered when sequence divergence is calculated. Mol. Biol. Evol. 6:270-289.
30. Soltis, D. E., and P. S. Soltis. 2004. Amborella not a "basal angiosperm"? Not so fast. Am. J. Bot. 91:997-1001.
31. Steel, M., D. Huson, and P. J. Lockhart. 2000. Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 49:225-232.
32. 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.
33. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 10. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
34. 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. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.
35. Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, positions-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680.
36. Tuffley, C., and M. Steel. 1998. Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Math. Biosci. 147:63-91.
37. Vogl, C., J. Badger, P. Kearney, M. Li, M. Clegg, and T. Jiang. 2003. Probabilistic analysis indicates discordant gene trees in chloroplast evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 56:330-340.
38. Whelan, S., P. Liò, and N. Goldman. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics: state of the art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet. 17:262-272.
39. Yang, Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites. J. Mol. Evol. 39:306-314.
40. -. 1996. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:367-372.