The shape of supertrees to come: Tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 419-431

  Wilkinson, Mark ^a   Cotton, James A ^a   Creevey, Chris ^b   Eulenstein, Oliver ^c   Harris, Simon R ^a,d   Lapointe, Francois Joseph ^e   Levasseur, Claudine ^e   Mcinerney, James O ^b   Pisani, Davide ^a   Thorley, Joseph L ^f  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^c Iowa State University   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^f MARINE LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consensus; Parsimony; Phylogeny; Tree of life; Tree similarity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

THUJA;

EID: 22844442070     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150590949832     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aho, A. V., Y. Sagiv, T. G. Szymanski, and J. D. Ullman. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10:405-421.
2. Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
3. Barthélemy, J. P., and F. R. McMorris. 1986. The median procedure for n-trees. J. Classif. 3:329-334.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and H. N. Bryant. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508.
5. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and M. A. Steel. 2002. The (super) tree of life: Procedures, problems and prospects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:265-289.
6. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and M. J. Sanderson. 2001. An assessment of the accuracy of MRP supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-579.
7. Bryant, D., and M. A. Steel. 1995. Extension operation on sets of leaf-labelled trees. Adv. Appl. Math. 16:425-453.
8. Chen, D., L. Diao, O. Eulenstein, D. Fenández-Baca, and M. J. Sanderson. 2003. Flipping: A supertree construction method. Pages 135-160 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
9. Constantinescu, M., and D. Sankoff. 1995. An efficient algorithm for supertrees. J. Classif. 12:101-112.
10. Cotton, J. A., and R. D. M. Page. 2004. Tangled trees from molecular markers: Reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. Pages 107-125 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
11. Creevey, C. J., D. A. Fitzpatrick, G. K. Philip, R. J. Kinsella, M. J. O'Connell, M. M. Pentony, S. A. Travers, M. Wilkinson, and J. O. McInerney. 2004. Does a tree-like phylogeny only exist at the tips in the prokaryotes? Proc. R. Soc. B 271:2552-2558.
12. Creevey C. J., and J. O. McInerney. 2004. Clann: Investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21:390-392.
13. Estabrook, G.F., F. R. McMorris, and C. A. Meacham. 1985. Comparison of undirected phylogenetic trees based on subtrees of four evolutionary units. Syst. Zool. 34:193-200.
14. Eulenstein, O., D. Chen, J. G. Burleigh, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M. J. Sanderson. 2004. Performance of flip-supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53:299-308.
15. Farris, J. S. 1973. On comparing the shapes of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 22:50-54.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP: Phylogenetic inference package, version 3.5c. University of Washington, Seattle.
17. Goloboff, P. A., and D. Pol. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514-525.
18. Gordon, A. D. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:31-39.
19. Lanyon, S. M. 1993. Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49:45-61.
20. Lapointe, F.-J., and G. Cucumel. 1997. The average consensus procedure: combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst. Biol. 46:306-312.
21. Lapointe, F.-J., and G. Cucumel. 2003. How good can a consensus get? Assessing the reliability of consensus trees in phylogenetic studies. Pages 205-219 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
22. Lapointe, F.-J., and P. Legendre. 1995. Comparison tests for dendrograms: A comparative evaluation. J. Classif. 12:265-282.
23. Lapointe, F.-J., and C. Levasseur. 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. Pages 87-105 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
24. Liu, F.-G. R., M. M. Miyamoto, N. P. Freire, P. Q. Ong, M. R. Tennant, T. S. Young, and K. F. Gugel. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-1789.
25. Mooers, A. O., and S. B. Heard. 2002. Using tree shape. Syst. Biol. 51:833-834.
26. Nelson, G., and P. Y. Ladiges. 1994. Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. Pages 193-209 in Models in phylogeny reconstruction (R. W. Scotland, D. J. Siebert, and D. M. Williams, eds.). The Systematics Association Special Volume No. 52. Oxford University Press, New York.
27. Page, R. D. M. 1998. GeneTree: Comparing gene and species phylogenies using reconciled trees. Bioinformatics 14:819-820.
28. Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2452:537-551.
29. Page, R. D. M., and M. A. Charleston. 1997. From gene to organismal phylogeny: Reconciled trees and the gene tree/species tree problem. Mol. Phy. Evol. 7:231-240.
30. Phillips, C. A., and T. J. Warnow. 1996. The asymmetric median tree - A new model for building consensus trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 71:311-335.
31. Pisani, D. 2002. Comparing and combining data and trees in phylogenetic analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.
32. Pisani, D., and M. Wilkinson. 2002. MRP, taxonomic congruence and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51:151-155.
33. Pisani, D., A. M. Yates, M. C. Langer, and M. J. Benton. 2002. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:915-921.
34. Purvis, A. 1995a. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
35. Purvis, A. 1995b. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 348:405-421.
36. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
37. Robinson, D., and L. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
38. Rodrigo, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267-274.
39. Ronquist, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45:247-253.
40. Sanderson, M. J., A. Purvis, and C. Henze. 1998 Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-109.
41. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
42. Slowinksi, J., and R. D. M. Page. 1999. How should species trees be inferred from molecular sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48:814-825.
43. Steel, M. A. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9:91-116.
44. Steel, M. A., A. W. M. Dress, and S. Böker. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Syst. Biol. 49:363-368.
45. Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
46. Thorley, J. L., and R. D. M. Page. 2000. RadCon: Phylogenetic tree comparison and consensus. Bioinformatics 16:486-487.
47. Thorley, J. L., and M. Wilkinson. 2000. The RadCon manual 1.1.2. Bristol University, UK. http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~thorley/manual/manual.htm.
48. Thorley, J. L., and M. Wilkinson. 2003. A view of supertree methods. Pages 185-193 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
49. Thorley, J. L., M. Wilkinson, and M. A. Charleston. 1998. The information content of consensus trees. Pages 91-98 in Advances in data science and classification (A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, and H.-H. Bock, eds.). Springer, Berlin.
50. Wilkinson, M. 1994a. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: Reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43:343-368.
51. Wilkinson, M. 1994b. Three-taxon statements: When is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics 10:221-223.
52. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. T. J. Littlewood, and R. A. Bray. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree for the Platyhelminthes? Pages 292-301 in interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes (D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray, eds.). Chapman-Hall, London.
53. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. Pisani, F.-J. Lapointe, and J. O. McInerney. 2004. Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. Pages 227-246 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.