Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 299-308

  Eulenstein, Oliver ^a   Chen, Duhong ^a   Burleih, J Gordon ^a,b   Fernández Baca, David ^a   Sanderson, Michael J ^b  

^a Iowa State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Flipping; Phylogeny; Simulation study; Supertree

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

ALGORITHMS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 2442598026     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490423719     Document Type: Article

References (44)

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. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 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. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2000. Factors influencing phylogenetic inference: A case study using the mammalian carnivores. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:113-126.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-175.
5. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and M. A. Steel. 2002. The (super)tree of life: Procedures, problems, and prospects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:265-289.
6. Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. Pages 163-183 in DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science, Volume 61. Bioconsensus (M. F. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
7. Chen, D., L. Diao, O. Eulenstein, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M. Sanderson. 2003. Flipping: A supertree construction method. Pages 135-160 in DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science, Volume 61. Bioconsensus (M. F. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
8. Daubin, V., M. Gouy, and G. Perriere. 2002. A phylogenetic approach to bacterial phylogeny: Evidence of a core of genes sharing a common history. Gen. Res. 12:1080-1090.
9. Day, W. H. E. 1986. Analysis of quartet dissimilarity measures between undirected phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 35:325-333.
10. Day, W. H. E., D. S. Johnson, and D. Sankoff. 1986. The computational complexity of inferring rooted phylogenies by parsimony. Math. Biosci. 81:33-42.
11. Donoghue, M. J. 1989. Phylogenies and the analysis of evolutionary sequences, with examples from seed plants. Evolution 43:1137-1156.
12. Donoghue, M. J., R. H. Ree, and D. A. Baum. 1998. Phylogeny and the evolution of flower symmetry in the Asteridae. Trends Plant Sci. 3:311-317.
13. Doyle, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17:144-163.
14. Gatesy, J., C. Matthee, R. DeSalle, and C. Hayahi. 2002. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 51:652-664.
15. Gordon, A. D. 1980. On the assessment and comparison of classifications. Pages 149-160 in Analyse de données et informatique (R. Tomassine, ed.). INRIA, Le Chesnay, France.
16. Kennedy, M., and R. D. M. Page. 2002. Seabird supertrees: Combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. Auk 119:88-108.
17. Kimura, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16:111-120.
18. Kubicka, E., G. Kubicki, and F. R. McMorris. 1992. On agreement subtrees of two binary trees. Congr. Num. 88:217-224.
19. Linder, H. P. 2000. Vicariance, climate change, anatomy and phylogeny of Restionaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134:159-177.
20. Liu, E, M. Miyamoto, N. Freire, P. Ong, M. Tennant, T. Young, and K. Gugel. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-1789.
21. Martin, T. E., and J. Clobert. 1996. Nest predation and avian life history evolution in Europe versus North America: A possible role of humans? Am. Nat. 147:1028-1047.
22. Ortolani, A. 1999. Spots, stripes, tail tips and dark eyes: Predicting the function of carnivore color patterns using the comparative method. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 67:433-467.
23. Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified MinCut Supertrees. Pages 537-551 in Algorithm in bioinformatics: Second international workshop (WABI) proceedings (R. Guigo and D. Gusfield, eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
24. 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.
25. Plunkett, G. M. 2001. Relationship of the order Apiales to subclass Asteridae: A re-evaluation of morphological characters based on insights from molecular data. Edinb. J. Bot. 58:183-200.
26. Purvis, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 348:405-421.
27. Purvis, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
28. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
29. 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.
30. Robinson, D. R., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
31. Ross, S. 2000. Introduction to probability models, 7th edition. Harcourt Academic Press, New York.
32. Salamin, N., T. R. Hodkinson, and V. Savolainen. 2002. Building supertrees: An empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Syst. Biol. 51:112-126.
33. 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.
34. Sanderson, M. J., A. Purvis, and C. Henze. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-109.
35. Schwilk, D. W., and D. D. Ackerly. 2001. Flammability and serotiny as strategies: Correlated evolution in pines. Oikos 94:326-336.
36. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Disc. Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
37. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
38. Sober, E. 1988. Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
39. Steel, M. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9:91-116.
40. Steel, M. 2001. Subtree transfer operations and their induced metrics on evolutionary trees. Ann. Combinat. 5:1-13.
41. Steel, M., A. Dress, and S. Bocker. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Syst. Biol. 49:363-368.
42. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 10. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
43. 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, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
44. Wojciechowski, M. F., M. J. Sanderson, K. P. Steele, and A. Liston. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the "temperate herbaceous tribes" of papilionoid legumes: A supertree approach. Pages 277-298 in Advances in legume systematics (P. Herendeen and A. Bruneau, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, U.K.