Gene tree parsimony vs. uninode coding for phylogenetic reconstruction

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 298-308

  Cotton, James A ^a,b   Page, Roderic D M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642274782     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00109-X     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Barrett, M., Donoghue, M.J., Sober, E., 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40, 486-493.
2. Bishop, M.J., Friday, A.E., 1988. Estimating the interrelationships of tetrapod groups on the basis of molecular sequence data. In: Benton, M.J. (Ed.), The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, vol. 1, 2 vols. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
3. Bull, J.J., Huelsenbeck, J.P., Cunningham, C.W., Swofford, D.L., Waddell, P.J., 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42, 384-497.
4. Cognato, A.I., Vogler, A.P., 2001. Exploring data interaction and nucleotide alignment in a multiple gene analysis of Ips (Coleoptera: Scolytinae). Syst. Biol. 50 (6), 758-781.
5. Cotton, J.A., Page, R.D.M., 2002. Going nuclear: gene family evolution and vertebrate phylogeny reconciled. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B 269 (1500), 1555-1561.
6. de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M.J., Kim, J., 1995. Seperate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26, 657-681.
7. Delarbre, C., Gallut, C., Barriel, V., Janvier, P., Gachelin, G., 2002. Complete mitochondrial DNA of the hagfish, Eptatretus burgeri: the comparative analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences strongly supports the cyclostome monophyly. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22 (2), 184-192.
8. Eulenstein, O., 1997. "A linear time algorithm for tree mapping." Arbeitspapiere der GMD No. 1046.
9. Fellows, M., Hallett, M., Stege, U., 1998. On the multiple gene duplication problem. In: Kyung-Yongn, C., Ibarram, O.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation.
10. Fitch, W.M., 1979. Cautionary remarks on using gene expression events in parsimony procedures. Syst. Zool. 28, 375-379.
11. Gatesy, J., O'Grady, P., Baker, R.H., 1999. Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 15, 271-313.
12. Gonnet, G.H., Hallett, M.T., Korostensky, C., Bernardin, L., 2000. Darwin v. 2.0: an interpreted computer language for the biosciences. Bioinformatics 16, 101-103.
13. Guigo, R., Muchnik, I., Smith, T.F., 1996. Reconstruction of ancient molecular phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6 (2), 189-213.
14. Hallett, M.T., Lagergren, J., 2000. New algorithms for the duplication-loss model. RECOMB '00, the Fourth Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, Tokyo, Japan.
15. Hedges, S.B., Poling, L.L., 1999. A molecular phylogeny of reptiles. Science 283 (5404), 998-1001.
16. Holmes, S., 2003. Statistics for phylogenetic trees. Theoretical Population Biology 63, 17-32.
17. Huelsenbeck, J.P., Bull, J.J., 1996. A likelihood ratio test for detection of conflicting phylogenetic signal. Syst. Biol. 45, 92-98.
18. Huelsenbeck, J.P., Rannala, B., Masly, J.P., 2000. Accomodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. Science 288, 2349-2350.
19. Janvier, P., 1996. The dawn of the vertebrates: characters versus common ascent in the rise of current vertebrate phylogenies. Palaeontology 39 (Pt 2), 259-287.
20. Jow, H., Hudelot, C., Rattray, M., Higgs, P.G., 2002. Bayesian phylogenetics using an RNA substitution model applied to early mammalian evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (9), 1591-1601.
21. Kluge, A., 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 37, 315-328.
22. Levausser, C., Lapointe, F.-J., 2001. War and peace in phylogenetics: a rejoinder on total evidence and consensus. Syst. Biol. 50 (6), 881-892.
23. Løvtrup, 1977. The Phylogeny of the Vertebrata. Wiley, New York.
24. Lynch, M., Conery, J.S., 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290 (5494), 1151-1155.
25. Maddison, W.P., 1989. Reconstructing character evolution on polytomous cladograms. Cladistics 5 (365-377).
26. Martin, A.P., Burg, T.M., 2002. Perils of paralogy: ssing HSP70 genes for inferring organismal phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 51 (4), 570-587.
27. Miyamato, M.M., Fitch, W.M., 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44, 64-76.
28. Nei, M., Rogozin, I.B., Piontkivska, H., 2000. Purifying selection and birth-and-death evolution in the ubiquitin gene family. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (20), 10866-10871.
29. Nixon, K., Carpenter, J., 1996. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 12, 221-241.
30. Page, R.D.M., 1994. Maps between trees and cladistic analysis of historical associations among genes, organisms and areas. Syst. Biol. 43 (1), 58-77.
31. Page, R.D.M., 1996. On consensus, confidence, and "total evidence". Cladistics 12 (1), 83-92.
32. Page, R.D.M., 1998. GENETREE: comparing gene and species phylogenies using reconciled trees. Bioinformatics 14 (9), 819-820.
33. Page, R.D.M., 2000. Extracting species trees from complex gene trees: reconciled trees and vertebrate phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14 (1), 89-106.
34. Page, R.D.M., Charleston, M.A., 1997. Reconciled trees and incongruent gene and species trees. In: Mirkin, B., McMorris, F.R., Roberts, F.S., Rzhetsky, A. (Eds.), Mathematical Hierarchies in Biology, vol. 37. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp. 57-71.
35. Page, R.D.M., Cotton, J.A., 2000. GENETREE: a tool for exploring gene family evolution. In: Sankoff, D., Nadeau, J.H. (Eds.), Comparative Genomics: Empirical and Analytical Approaches to Gene Order Dynamics, Map Alignment and the Evolution of Gene Families. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 525-536.
36. Page, R.D.M., Cotton, J.A., 2002. Vertebrate phylogenomics: reconciled trees and gene duplications. Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 536-547.
37. Rasmussen, A.S., Arnason, U., 1999. Phylogenetic studies of complete mitochondrial DNA molecules place cartilaginous fishes within the tree of bony fishes. J. Mol. Evol. 48 (1), 118-123.
38. Rieppel, O., 2000. Turtles as diapsid reptiles. Zool. Scr. 29 (3), 199-212.
39. Simmons, M.P., Bailey, C.D., Nixon, K.C., 2000. Phylogeny reconstruction using duplicate genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17 (4), 469-473.
40. Simmons, M.P., Freudenstein, J.V., 2002. Uninode coding vs gene tree parsimony for phylogenetic reconstruction using duplicate genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 23 (481-498).
41. Slowinski, J.B., Knight, A., Rooney, A.P., 1997. Inferring species trees from gene trees: a phylogenetic analysis of the Elapidae (Serpentes) based on the amino acid sequences of venom proteins. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8 (3), 349-362.
42. Slowinski, J.B., Page, R.D.M., 1999. How should phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48 (4), 814-825.
43. Swofford, D.L., 1991. When are phylogenetic estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In: Miyamato, M.M., Cracraft, J. (Eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 295-333.
44. Swofford, D.L., 1998. PAUP* - Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
45. Zardoya, R., Meyer, A., 2001. Vertebrate phylogeny: limits of inference of mitochondrial genome and nuclear rDNA sequence data due to an adverse phylogenetic signal/noise ratio. In: Ahlberg, P.E. (Ed.), Major Events in Early Vertebrate Evolution. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 135-156.
46. Zhang, L., 2000. Inferring a species tree from gene trees under the deep coalescence cost. Poster, RECOMB2000, Tokyo, Japan.