Analysis and visualization of tree space

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 471-482

  Hillis, David M ^a   Heath, Tracy A ^a   St John, Katherine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Multidimensional scaling; Phylogenetic analysis; Tree space; Visualization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 22844442543     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150590946961     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Alfaro, M. E., S. Zoller, and F. Lutzoni. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:255-266.
2. Amenta, N., and J. Klingner. 2002. Case study: Visualizing sets of evolutionary trees. 8th IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2002:71-74.
3. Borg, I., and P. Groenen. 1997. Modern multidimensional scaling. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
4. Buckley, T. R., P. Arensburger, C. Simon, and G. K. Chambers. 2002. Combined data, Bayesian phylogenetics, and the origin of the New Zealand cicada genera. Syst. Biol. 51:4-18.
5. Buneman, P. 1971. The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. Pages 387-395 in Mathematics in archaeological and historical sciences. (F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu, eds.). Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
6. Cummings, M. P., S. A. Handley, D. S. Myers, D. L. Reed, A. Rokas, and K. Winka. 2003. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 55:477-487.
7. Day, W. H. E. 1985. Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. J. Classification 2:7-28.
8. Efron, B., E. Halloran, and S. Holmes. 1996. Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:7085-7090.
9. Erixon, P., B. Svennblad, T. Britton, and B. Oxelman. 2003. Reliability of Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap frequencies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 52:665-673.
10. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
11. Geyer, C. J. 1991. Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. Pages 156-163 in Computing science and statistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface (E. M. Keramidas, ed). Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station.
12. Gilks, W. R., and G. O. Roberts. 1996. Strategies for improving MCMC Pages 89-114 in Markov Monte Carlo in practice (W. R. Gilks, G.O. Roberts, and D. J. Spiegelhalter, eds). Chapman and Hall, London.
13. Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
14. Hillis, D. M., and T. P. Wilcox. 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34:299-314.
15. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and B. Rannala. 2004. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 53:904-913.
16. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-1574.
17. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielson, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
18. Larget, B., and D. L. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
19. Li, W.-H., and A. Zharkikh. 1994. What is the bootstrap technique? Syst. Biol. 43:424-430.
20. Lingoes, J. C., E. E. Roskam, and I. Borg. 1979. Geometric representations of relational data, 2nd edition. Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
21. Maddison, D. R. 1991. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 40:315-328.
22. Maddison, W. P., and D. R. Maddison. 1992. MacClade: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts (see also http://www.macclade.org).
23. Maddison, W. P., and D. R. Maddison. 2004. Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 1.02. http://mesquiteproject.org.
24. Murphy, W. J., E. Eizirik, S. J. O'Brien, O. Madsen, M. Scally, C. J. Douady, E. Teeling, O. A. Ryder, M. J. Stanhope, W. W. de Jong, and M. S. Springer. 2001. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294:2348-2351.
25. Nylander, J. A. A., F. Ronquist, J. P. Huelsenbeck, and J. L. Nieves-Aldrey. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53:47-67.
26. Penny, D., and M. D. Hendy. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34:75-82.
27. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
28. 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.
29. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds, 1979. Comparison of weighted labeled trees. Lect. Notes Math. 748:119-126.
30. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
31. Rodrigo, A. G. 1993. Calibrating the bootstrap test of monophyly. Int. J. Parasitol. 23:507-514.
32. Stockham, C., L.-S. Wang, and T. Warnow. 2002. Statistically based postprocessing of phylogenetic analysis by clustering. Bioinformatics 18:5285-5293.
33. Suzuki Y., G. V. Glazko, and M. Nei. 2002. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:16138-16143.
34. Swofford, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? Pages 295-333 in Phylogenetic analysis of DNA aequences (M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft, eds.). Oxford University Press, New York.
35. Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
36. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics, 2nd edition (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
37. Whittingham, L. A., B. Slikas, D. W. Winkler, and F. H. Sheldon. 2002. Phylogeny of the tree swallow genus Tachycineta (Aves: Hirundinidae), by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22:430-441.
38. Wilcox, T. P., D. J. Zwickl, T. A. Heath, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25:361-371.
39. Young, F. W. and R. M. Hamer. 1987. Multidimensional scaling: History, theory and applications. Erlbaum, New York.
40. Zharkikh, A., and W.-H. Li. 1992a. Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. I. Four taxa with a molecular clock. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:1119-1147.
41. Zharkikh, A., and W.-H. Li. 1992b. Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. II. Four taxa without a molecular clock. J. Mol. Evol. 35:356-366.
42. Zharkikh, A., and W.-H. Li. 1995. Estimation of confidence in phylogeny: The complete-and-partial bootstrap technique. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4:44-63.