Untangling long branches: Identifying conflicting phylogenetic signals using spectral analysis, neighbor-net, and consensus networks

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 620-633

  Kennedy, Martyn ^a   Holland, Barbara R ^b   Gray, Russell D ^c   Spencer, Hamish G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Anhingidae; Consensus networks; Darters; Long branch attraction; Neighbor Net; Pelecaniformes; Spectral analysis

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRD; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; BIRDS; CLASSIFICATION; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

ANHINGIDAE; PELECANIDAE; PELECANIFORMES; PHALACROCORACIDAE; SULIDAE;

EID: 25144453704     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351591007462     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Anderson, F. E., and D. L. Swofford. 2004. Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33:440-451.
2. Bandelt, H.-J., and A. W. M. Dress. 1992. A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set. Adv. Math. 92:47-105.
3. Bryant, D., and V. Moulton. 2004. Neighbor-Net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:255-265.
4. Charleston, M. A. 1998. Spectrum: Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data. Bioinformatics 14:98-99.
5. Charleston, M. A., and R. D. M. Page. 1999. Spectral analysis - A brief introduction. Pages 255-267 in Molecular systematics and plant evolution (P. M. Hollingsworth, R. M. Bateman, and R. J. Gornall, eds.). Taylor & Francis, London.
6. Clements, K. D., R. D. Gray, and J. H. Choat. 2003. Rapid evolutionary divergences in reef fishes of the family Acanthuridae (Perciformes: Teleostei). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 26:190-201.
7. Cracraft, J. 1985. Monophyly and the phylogenetic relationships of the Pelecaniformes: A numerical cladistic analysis. Auk 102:834-853.
8. Cracraft, J. 1994. Species diversity, biogeography, and the evolution of biotas. Ame. Zool. 34:33-47.
9. Cunningham, C. W., H. Zhu, and D. M. Hillis. 1998. Best-fit maximum-likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: Empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978-987.
10. Darlu, P., and G. Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:432-437.
11. Dolphin, K., R. Belshaw, C. D. L. Orme, and D. L. J. Quicke. 2000. Noise and incongruence: Interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:401-406.
12. Faith, D. P. 1991. Cladistic tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly. Syst. Zool. 40:366-375.
13. Faith, D. P., and P. S. Cranston. 1991. Could a cladogram this short have arisen by chance alone? On permutation tests for cladistic structure. Cladistics 7:1-28.
14. Farris, J. S., M. Källersjö, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1995. Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44:570-572.
15. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
17. Felsenstein, J. 2003. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
18. Graybeal, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
19. Hafner, M. S., P. D. Sudman, F. X. Villablanca, T. A. Spradling, J. W. Demastes, and S. A. Nadler. 1994. Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites. Science 265:1087-1090.
20. Harrison, G. L., P. A. McLenachan, M. J. Phillips, K. E. Slack, A. Cooper, and D. Penny. 2004. Four new avian mitochondrial genomes help get to basic evolutionary questions in the Late Cretaceous. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:974-983.
21. Hedges, S. B., and C. G. Sibley. 1994. Molecules vs. morphology in avian evolution: The case of the "pelecaniform" birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:9861-9865.
22. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
23. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1993. Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data. J. Classif. 10:5-24.
24. Hillis, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
25. Hillis, D. M., and J. P. Huelsenbeck. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. J. Hered. 83:189-195.
26. Holland, B. R., F. Delsuc, and V. Moulton. 2005. Visualizing conflicting evolutionary hypotheses in large collections of trees: Using consensus networks to study the origins of placentals and hexapods. Syst. Biol. 54:66-76.
27. Holland, B., K. Huber, A. Dress, and V.Moulton. 2002. Delta-plots: A tool for analyzing phylogenetic distance data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2051-2059.
28. Holland, B. R., and V. Moulton. 2003. Consensus networks: A method for visualising incompatibilities in collections of trees. Pages 165-176 in WABI 2003. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Budapest.
29. Holland, B. R., D. Penny, and M. D. Hendy. 2003. Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock - a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 52:229-238.
30. Huber, K. T., M. Langton, D. Penny, V. Moulton, and M. Hendy. 2002. Spectronet: A package for computing spectra and median networks. Appl. Bioinformat. 1:159-161.
31. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1997. Is the Felsenstein zone a fly trap? Syst. Biol. 46:69-74.
32. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1998. Systematic bias in phylogenetic analysis: Is the Strepsiptera problem solved? Syst. Biol. 47:519-537.
33. Johnsgard, P. A. 1993. Cormorants, darters and pelicans of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
34. Kennedy, M., R. D. Gray, and H. G. Spencer. 2000. The phylogenetic relationships of the shags and cormorants: Can sequence data resolve a disagreement between behavior and morphology? Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:345-359.
35. Kennedy, M., and H. G. Spencer. 2000. Phylogeny, biogeography, and taxonomy of Australasian teals. Auk 117:154-163.
36. Kennedy, M., and H. G. Spencer. 2004. Phylogenies of the Frigatebirds (Fregatidae) and Tropicbirds (Phaethonidae), two divergent groups of the traditional order Pelecaniformes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31:31-38.
37. Kennedy, M., H. G. Spencer, and R. D. Gray. 1996. Hop, step and gape: Do the social displays of the Pelecaniformes reflect phylogeny? Anim. Behav. 51:273-291.
38. Kocher, T. D., W. K. Thomas, A. Meyer, S. V. Edwards, S. Paabo, F. X. Villablanca, and A. C. Wilson. 1989. Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: Amplification and sequencing with conserved primers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:6196-6200.
39. Larson, A., and J. B. Losos. 1996. Phylogenetic systematics of adaptation. Pages 187-220 in Adaptation (M. R. Rose and G. V. Lauder, eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, California.
40. Lento, G. M., R. E. Hickson, G. K. Chambers, and D. Penny. 1995. Use of spectral analysis to test hypotheses on the origin of pinnipeds. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:28-52.
41. Lin, Y. H., P. A. McLenachan, A. R. Gore, M. J. Phillips, R. Ota, M. D. Hendy, and D. Penny. 2002. Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2060-2070.
42. Lockhart, P. J., D. Penny, and A. Meyer. 1995. Testing the phylogeny of swordtail fishes using split decomposition and spectral analysis. J. Mol. Evol. 41:666-674.
43. Lyons-Weiler, J. and G. A. Hoelzer. 1997. Escaping from the Felsenstein Zone by detecting long branches in phylogenetic data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8:375-384.
44. Mindell, D. P., M. D. Sorenson, D. E. Dimcheff, M. Hasegawa, J. C. Ast, and T. Yuri. 1999. Interordinal relationships of birds and other reptiles based on whole mitochondrial genomes. Syst. Biol. 48:138-152.
45. Nelson, G., and N. Platnick. 1981. Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.
46. Page, R. D. M., P. L. M. Lee, S. A. Becher, R. Griffiths, and D. H. Clayton. 1998. A different tempo of mitochondrial DNA evolution in birds and their parasitic lice. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:276-293.
47. Paterson, A. M., and R. D. Gray. 1996. Analytical tests of host/parasite cospeciation. Pages 236-259 in Coevolutionary biology of birds and parasites (D. H. Clayton and J. Moore, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
48. Penny, D., M. Hasegawa, P. J. Waddell, and M. D. Hendy. 1999. Mammalian evolution: Timing and implications from using the LogDeterminant transformation for proteins of differing amino acid composition. Syst. Biol. 48:76-93.
49. Poe, S. 1998. The effect of taxonomic sampling on accuracy of phylogeny estimation: Test case of a known phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:1086-1090.
50. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
51. Rambaut, A., and N. C. Grassly. 1997. Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Computer Applications in the Biosciences 13:235-238.
52. Ronquist, F., and J. P. Huelsenbeck. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-1574.
53. Saitou, N., and N. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstruction of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406-425.
54. Schulmeister, S. 2004. Inconsistency of maximum parsimony revisited. Syst. Biol. 53:521-528.
55. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
56. Sibley, C. G., and J. E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds: A study in molecular evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
57. Siegel-Causey, D. 1997. Phylogeny of the Pelecaniformes: Molecular systematics of a privative group. Pages 159-171 in Avian molecular evolution and systematics (D. P. Mindell, ed.) Academic Press, San Diego, California.
58. Slikas, B. 1998. Recognizing and testing homology of courtship displays in storks (Aves: Ciconiiformes: Ciconiidae). Evolution 52:884-893.
59. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
60. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
61. Thorley, J. L., and M. Wilkinson. 1999. Testing the phylogenetic stability of early tetrapods. J. Theor. Biol. 200:343-344.
62. van Tuinen, M., D. B. Butvill, J. A. W. Kirsch, and S. B. Hedges. 2001. Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 268:1345-1350.
63. Wiens, J. J., and B. D. Hollingsworth. 2000. War of the iguanas: Conflicting molecular and morphological phylogenies and long-branch attraction in iguanid lizards. Syst. Biol. 49:143-159.
64. Wilkinson, M. 1996. Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:437-444.
65. Wilkinson, M., F.-J. Lapointe, and D. J. Gower. 2003. Branch lengths and support. Syst. Biol. 52:127-130.