Efficiencies of maximum likelihood methods of phylogenetic inferences when different substitution models are used

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 865-873

  Piontkivska, Helen ^a,b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Maximum likelihood; Nucleotide substitution model; Phylogenetic tree; Topological distance

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442612992     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.10.011     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson, C.L., Carew, E.A., Powell, J.R., 1993. Evolution of the Adh locus in the Drosophila willistoni group: the loss of an intron, and shift in codon usage. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 605-618.
2. Bruno, W.J., Halpern, A.L., 1999. Topological bias and inconsistency of maximum likelihood using wrong models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 564-566.
3. Felsenstein, J., 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17, 368-376.
4. Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H., Yano, T., 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22, 160-174.
5. Hedin, M.C., Maddison, W.P., 2001. A combined molecular approach to phylogeny of the jumping spider subfamily Dendryphantinae (Araneae: Salticidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 18, 386-403.
6. Huelsenbeck, J.P., Crandall, K.A., 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28, 437-466.
7. Jin, L., Nei, M., 1990. Limitations of the evolutionary parsimony method of phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 7, 82-102.
8. Jukes, T.H., Cantor, C.R., 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro, H.N. (Ed.), Mammalian Protein Metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp. 21-132.
9. Kimura, M., 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16, 111-112.
10. Lemmon, A.R., Milinkovitch, M.C., 2002. The metapopulation genetic algorithm: an efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 10516-10521.
11. Lloyd, A.T., Sharp, P.M., 1992. Evolution of codon usage patterns: the extent and nature of divergence between Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 5289-5295.
12. Nei, M., Kumar, S., 2000. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Nei, M., Kumar, S., Takahashi, K., 1998. The optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis tends to give incorrect topologies when the number of nucleotides or amino acids used is small. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 12390-12397.
14. Olsen, G.J., Matsuda, H., Hagstrom, R., Overbeek, R., 1994. fastDNAmL: a tool for construction of phylogenetic trees of DNA sequences using maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 10, 41-48.
15. Ota, S., Li, W.H., 2000. NJML: a hybrid algorithm for the neighbor-joining and maximum-likelihood methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 1401-1409.
16. Ota, S., Li, W.H., 2001. NJML+: an extension of the NJML method to handle protein sequence data and computer software implementation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 1983-1992.
17. Penny, D., Hendy, M.D., 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Biol. 34, 75-82.
18. Piontkivska, H., Nei, M., 2003. Birth-and-death evolution in primate MHC class I genes: divergence time estimates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20, 601-609.
19. Posada, D., Crandall, K., 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50, 580-601.
20. Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., 1998, Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817-818.
21. Reyes, A., Pesole, G., Saccone, C., 2000. Long-branch attraction phenomenon and the impact of among-site rate variation on rodent phylogeny. Gene 259, 177-187.
22. Rice, K.A., Donoghue, M.J., Olmstead, R.G., 1997. Analyzing large data sets: rbcL revisited. Syst. Biol. 46, 554-563.
23. Robinson, D.F., Foulds, L.R., 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53, 131-147.
24. Rogers, J.S., Swofford, D.L., 1998. A fast method for approximating maximum likelihoods of phylogenetic trees from nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 47, 77-89.
25. Russo, C.A., Takezaki, N., Nei, M., 1996. Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 525-536.
26. Salter, L.A., 2001. Complexity of the likelihood surface for a large DNA dataset. Syst. Biol. 50, 970-978.
27. Shields, D.C., 1990. Switches in species-specific codon preferences: the influence of mutation biases. J. Mol. Evol. 31, 71-80.
28. Sullivan, J., Swofford, D.L., 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? Syst. Biol. 50, 723-729.
29. Swofford, D.L., 1998. PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
30. Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J., Waddell, P.J., Hillis, D.M., 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis, D.M., Moritz, C., Mable, B.K. (Eds.), Molecular Systematics, second ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp. 407-514.
31. Takahashi, K., Nei, M., 2000. Efficiencies of fast algorithms of phylogenetic inference under the criteria of maximum parsimony, minimum evolution, and maximum likelihood when a large number of sequences are used. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 1251-1258.
32. Tarrio, R., Rodriguez-Trelles, F., Ayala, F.J., 2001. Shared nucleotide composition biases among species and their impact on phylogenetic reconstructions of the drosophilidae. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 1464-1473.
33. Tateno, Y., Nei, M., Tajima, F., 1982. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I. Distantly related species. J. Mol. Evol. 18, 387-404.
34. Wolf, M.J., Easteal, S., Kahn, M., McKay, B.D., Jermiin, L.S., 2000. TrExML: a maximum-likelihood approach for extensive tree-space exploration. Bioinformatics 16, 383-394.
35. Yang, Z., 1997. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14, 105-108.