Phylogenomics

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volumn 36, Issue , 2005, Pages 541-562

  Philippe, Hervé ^a   Delsuc, Frédéric ^a   Brinkmann, Henner ^a   Lartillot, Nicolas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b LIRMM   (France)

Author keywords

Inconsistency; Molecular phylogeny; Systematic bias; Taxon sampling; Tree of life

Indexed keywords

PHYLOGENY;

THUJA;

EID: 27744441025     PISSN: 00664162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130205     Document Type: Review

References (145)

1. Aguinaldo AM, Turbeville JM, Linford LS, Rivera MC, Garey JR, et al. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387:489-93
2. Altekar G, Dwarkadas S, Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2004. Parallel Metropolis coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 20:407-15
3. Bapteste E, Boucher Y, Leigh J, Doolittle WF. 2004. Phylogenetic reconstruction and lateral gene transfer. Trends Microbiol. 12:406-11
4. Bapteste E, Brinkmann H, Lee JA, Moore DV, Sensen CW, et al. 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1414-19
5. Baum BR. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10
6. Blair JE, Ikeo K, Gojobori T, Hedges SB. 2002. The evolutionary position of nematodes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2:7
7. Blaisdell BE. 1986. A measure of the similarity of sets of sequences not requiring sequence alignment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83:5155-59
8. Blanchette M, Bourque G, Sankoff D. 1997. Breakpoint phytogenies. Presented at 8th Genome Inform. Conf. (GIW 1997), Tokyo
9. Bourque G, Pevzner PA. 2002. Genome-scale evolution: reconstructing gene orders in the ancestral species. Genome Res. 12:26-36
10. Brauer MJ, Holder MT, Dries LA, Zwickl DJ, Lewis PO, Hillis DM. 2002. Genetic algorithms and parallel processing in maximum-likelihood phylogeny inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1717-26
11. Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 1999. Archaea sister group of bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:817-25
12. Brinkmann H, van der Giezen M, Zhou Y, Poncelin de Raucourt G, Philippe H. 2005. An empirical assessment of long branch attraction artifacts in phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. In press
13. Brochier C, Bapteste E, Moreira D, Philippe H. 2002. Eubacterial phylogeny based on translational apparatus proteins. Trends Genet. 18:1-5
14. Brochier C, Philippe H. 2002. Phylogeny: a non-hyperthermophilic ancestor for bacteria. Nature 417:244
15. Brown JR. 2003. Ancient horizontal gene transfer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4:121-32
16. Brown JR, Douady CJ, Italia MJ, Marshall WE, Stanhope MJ. 2001. Universal trees based on large combined protein sequence data sets. Nat. Genet. 28:281-85
17. Bull JJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW, Swofford DL, Wadell PJ. 1993. Partitioning and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-97
18. Burleigh JG, Mathews S. 2004. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. Am. J. Bot. 91:1599-613
19. Canback B, Tamas I, Andersson SG. 2004. A phylogenomic study of endosymbiotic bacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1110-22
20. Copley RR, Aloy P, Russell RB, Telford MJ. 2004. Systematic searches for molecular synapomorphies in model metazoan genomes give some support for Ecdysozoa after accounting for the idiosyncrasies of Caenorhabditis elegans. Evol. Dev. 6:164-69
21. Darlu P, Lecointre G. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:432-37
22. Daubin V, Gouy M, Perriere G. 2002. A phylogenomic approach to bacterial phylogeny: evidence of a core of genes sharing a common history. Genome Res. 12:1080-90
23. de Queiroz A, Donoghue MJ, Kim J. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:657-81
24. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2005. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6:361-75
25. Dolphin K, Belshaw R, Orme CD, Quicke DL. 2000. Noise and incongruence: interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:401-6
26. Doolittle WF. 1999. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284:2124-29
27. Dopazo H, Dopazo J. 2005. Genome-scale evidence of the nematode-arthropod clade. Genome Biol. 6:R41
28. Dopazo H, Santoyo J, Dopazo J. 2004. Phylogenomics and the number of characters required for obtaining an accurate phylogeny of eukaryote model species. Bioinformatics 20:i116-21
29. Dowton M, Austin AD. 2002. Increased congruence does not necessarily indicate increased phylogenetic accuracy - the behavior of the incongruence length difference test in mixed-model analyses. Syst. Biol. 51:19-31
30. Driskell AC, Ane C, Burleigh JG, McMahon MM, O'Meara BC, Sanderson MJ. 2004. Prospects for building the tree of life from large sequence databases. Science 306:1172-74
31. Dufresne A, Garczarek L, Partensky F. 2005. Accelerated evolution associated with genome reduction in a free-living prokaryote. Genome Biol. 6:R14
32. Dutilh BE, Huynen MA, Bruno WJ, Snel B. 2004. The consistent phylogenetic signal in genome trees revealed by reducing the impact of noise. J. Mol. Evol. 58:527-39
33. Edwards SV, Fertil B, Giron A, Deschavanne PJ. 2002. A genomic schism in birds revealed by phylogenetic analysis of DNA strings. Syst. Biol. 51:599-613
34. Eisen JA. 1998. Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Res. 8:163-67
35. Farris JS, Källerjo M, Kluge AG, Bult C. 1995. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315-19
36. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-10
37. Felsenstein J. 1988. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. Annu. Rev. Genet. 22:521-65
38. Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. 645 pp.
39. Feng XZ, Buell DA, Rose JR, Waddell PJ. 2003. Parallel algorithms for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 63:707-18
40. Fitch WM. 1970. Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst. Zool. 19:99-113
41. Fitch WM, Markowitz E. 1970. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem. Genet. 4:579-93
42. Fitz-Gibbon ST, House CH. 1999. Whole genome-based phylogenetic analysis of free-living microorganisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 27:4218-22
43. Gascuel O, ed. 2005. Mathematics of Evolution and Phylogeny. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
44. Gatesy J, Baker RH, Hayashi C. 2004. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Syst. Biol. 53:342-55
45. Gee H. 2003. Evolution: ending incongruence. Nature 425:782
46. Goldman N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-98
47. Goldman N, Anderson JP, Rodrigo AG. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-70
48. Goremykin VV, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Wolfl S, Hellwig FH. 2004. The chloroplast genome of Nymphaea alba: whole-genome analyses and the problem of identifying the most basal angiosperm. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1445-54
49. Graybeal A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17
50. Gu X, Zhang H. 2004. Genome phylogenetic analysis based on extended gene contents. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1401-8
51. Henz SR, Huson DH, Auch AF, Nieselt-Struwe K, Schuster SC. 2005. Whole-genome prokaryotic phylogeny. Bioinformatics 21:2329-35
52. Herbeck JT, Degnan PH, Wernegreen JJ. 2005. Non-homogeneous model of sequence evolution indicates independent origins of primary endosymbionts within the Enterobacteriales (γ-proteobacteria). Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:520-32
53. Hillis DM, Pollock DD, McGuire JA, Zwickl DJ. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-26
54. Hirt RP, Logsdon JM Jr, Healy B, Dorey MW, Doolittle WF, Embley TM. 1999. Microsporidia are related to fungi: evidence from the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II and other proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:580-85
55. Ho SY, Jermiin L. 2004. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. Syst. Biol. 53:623-37
56. Holder M, Lewis PO. 2003. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4:275-84
57. House CH, Fitz-Gibbon ST. 2002. Using homolog groups to create a whole-genomic tree of free-living organisms: an update. J. Mol. Evol. 54:539-47
58. House CH, Runnegar B, Fitz-Gibbon ST. 2003. Geobiological analysis using whole genome-based tree building applied to the Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. Geobiology 1:15-26
59. Hrdy I, Hirt RP, Dolezal P, Bardonova L, Foster PG, et al. 2004. Trichomonas hydrogenosomes contain the NADH dehydrogenase module of mitochondrial complex I. Nature 432:618-22
60. Huelsenbeck JP, Bull JJ. 1996. A likelihood ratio test to detect conflicting phylogenetic signal. Syst. Biol. 45:92-98
61. Huson DH, Nettles SM, Warnow TJ. 1999. Disk-covering, a fast-converging method for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. J. Comput. Biol. 6:369-86
62. Huson DH, Steel M. 2004. Phylogenetic trees based on gene content. Bioinformatics 20:2044-49
63. Inagaki Y, Susko E, Fast NM, Roger AJ. 2004. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1α phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1340-49
64. Keane TM, Naughton TJ, Travers SA, McInerney JO, McCormack GP. 2005. DPRml: distributed phylogeny reconstruction by maximum likelihood. Bioinformatics 21:969-74
65. Kim J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-74
66. Kluge AG. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25
67. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-84
68. Korbel JO, Snel B, Huynen MA, Bork P. 2002. SHOT: a web server for the construction of genome phylogenies. Trends Genet. 18:158-62
69. Lake JA, Rivera MC. 2004. Deriving the genomic tree of life in the presence of horizontal gene transfer: conditioned reconstruction. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:681-90
70. Larget B, Simon DL, Kadane JB, Sweet D. 2005. A Bayesian analysis of metazoan mitochondrial genome arrangements. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:486-95
71. Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2004. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1095-109
72. Lecointre G, Deleporte P. 2005. Total evidence requires exclusion of phylogenetically misleading data. Zool. Ser. 31:101-17
73. Lemmon AR, Milinkovitch MC. 2002. The metapopulation genetic algorithm: an efficient solution for the problem of large phylogeny estimation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:10516-2l
74. Lerat E, Daubin V, Moran NA. 2003. From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: the case of the γ-proteobacteria. PLoS Biol. 1:101-9
75. Lin J, Gerstein M. 2000. Whole-genome trees based on the occurrence of folds and orthologs: implications for comparing genomes on different levels. Genome Res. 10:808-18
76. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA, Hendy MD, Penny D. 1994. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:605-12
77. Lockhart PJ, Larkum AWD, Steel MA, Waddell PJ, Penny D. 1996. Evolution of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll: the problem of invariant sites in sequence analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:1930-34
78. Lopez P, Forterre P, Philippe H. 1999. The root of the tree of life in the light of the covarion model. J. Mol. Evol. 49:496-508
79. Madsen O, Scally M, Douady CJ, Kao DJ, DeBry RW, et al. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 409:610-14
80. Matte-Tailliez O, Brochier C, Forterre P, Philippe H. 2002. Archaeal phylogeny based on ribosomal proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:631-39
81. Misawa K, Janke A. 2003. Revisiting the Glires concept-phylogenetic analysis of nuclear sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28:320-27
82. Miyamoto MM, Fitch WM. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:64-76
83. Miyamoto MM, Koop BF, Slightom JL, Goodman M, Tennant MR. 1988. Molecular systematics of higher primates: genealogical relations and classification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85:7627-31
84. Moret BME, Tang J, Warnow T. 2005. Reconstructing phylogenies from gene-content and gene-order data. See Gascuel 2005, pp. 321-52
85. Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, Johnson WE, Zhang YP, Ryder OA, O'Brien SJ. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-18
86. Nadeau JH, Taylor BA. 1984. Lengths of chromosomal segments conserved since divergence of man and mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81:814-18
87. Nylander JA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey JL. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53:47-67
88. O'Brien SJ, Stanyon R. 1999. Phylogenomics. Ancestral primate viewed. Nature 402:365-66
89. Olsen G. 1987. Earliest phylogenetic branching: comparing rRNA-based evolutionary trees inferred with various techniques. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 52:825-37
90. Pagel M, Meade A. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or characterstate data. Syst. Biol. 53:571-81
91. Philip GK, Creevey CJ, McInerney JO. 2005. The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1175-84
92. Philippe H, Douady CJ. 2003. Horizontal gene transfer and phylogenetics. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6:498-505
93. Philippe H, Germot A. 2000. Phylogeny of eukaryotes based on ribosomal RNA: long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:830-34
94. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1246-53
95. Philippe H, Laurent J. 1998. How good are deep phylogenetic trees? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8:616-23
96. Philippe H, Lopez P, Brinkmann H, Budin K, Germot A, et al. 2000. Early-branching or fast-evolving eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 267:1213-21
97. Philippe H, Snell EA, Bapteste E, Lopez P, Holland PW, Casane D. 2004. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1740-52
98. Phillips MJ, Delsuc F, Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1455-58
99. Pisani D. 2004. Identifying and removing fast-evolving sites using compatibility analysis: an example from the arthropoda. Syst. Biol. 53:978-89
100. Pride DT, Meinersmann RJ, Wassenaar TM, Blaser MJ. 2003. Evolutionary implications of microbial genome tetranucleotide frequency biases. Genome Res. 13:145-58
101. Qi J, Wang B, Hao BI. 2004. Whole proteome prokaryote phylogeny without sequence alignment: a K-string composition approach. J. Mol. Evol. 58:1-11
102. Qiu YL, Lee J, Bernasconi-Quadroni F, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, et al. 1999. The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402:404-7
103. Ragan MA. 1992. Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among the eukaryotes. Biosystems 28:47-55
104. Remm M, Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL. 2001. Automatic clustering of orthologs and inparalogs from pairwise species comparisons. J. Mol. Biol. 314:1041-52
105. Rokas A, Williams BL, King N, Carroll SB. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804
106. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-74
107. Rosenberg MS, Kumar S. 2003. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52:119-24
108. Roy SW, Gilbert W. 2005. Resolution of a deep animal divergence by the pattern of intron conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:4403-8
109. Ruiz-Trillo I, Riutort M, Littlewood DT, Herniou EA, Baguna J. 1999. Acoel flatworms: earliest extant bilaterian Metazoans, not members of Platyhelminthes. Science 283:1919-23
110. Salter LA. 2001. Complexity of the likelihood surface for a large DNA dataset. Syst. Biol. 50:970-78
111. Sanderson MJ, Purvis A, Henze C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-9
112. Sanderson MJ, Shaffer HB. 2002. Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:49-72
113. Sankoff D, Leduc G, Antoine N, Faquin B, Lang BF, Cedergren R. 1992. Gene order comparisons for phylogenetic inference: evolution of the mitochondrial genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:6575-79
114. Sankoff D, Morel D, Cedergren R. 1973. Evolution of 5S RNA and the nonrandomness of base replacement. Nat. New Biol. 245:232-34
115. Sjolander K. 2004. Phylogenomic inference of protein molecular function: advances and challenges. Bioinformatics 20:170-79
116. Snel B, Bork P, Huynen MA. 1999. Genome phylogeny based on gene content. Nat. Genet. 21:108-10
117. Soltis DE, Albert VA, Savolainen V, Hilu K, Qiu YL, et al. 2004. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 9:477-83
118. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Zanis MJ. 2002. Phylogeny of seed plants based on evidence from eight genes. Am. J. Bot. 89:1670-81
119. Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Chase MW. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402:402-4
120. Stamatakis A, Ludwig T, Meier H. 2005. RAxML-III: a fast program for maximum likelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 21:456-63
121. Steel M. 2005. Should phylogenetic models be trying to 'fit an elephant'? Trends Genet. 21:307-9
122. Steel M, Penny D. 2000. Parsimony, likelihood, and the role of models in molecular phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:839-50
123. Stefanovic S, Rice DW, Palmer JD. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol. Biol. 4:35
124. Storm CE, Sonnhammer EL. 2002. Automated ortholog inference from phylogenetic trees and calculation of orthology reliability. Bioinformatics 18:92-99
125. Suchard MA, Kitchen CM, Sinsheimer JS, Weiss RE. 2003. Hierarchical phylogenetic models for analyzing multipartite sequence data. Syst. Biol. 52:649-64
126. Swofford DL. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences, ed. MM Miyamoto, J Cracraft, pp. 295-333. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
127. Swofford DL. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and Other Methods. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
128. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In Molecular Systematics, ed. DM Hillis, C Moritz, BK Mable, pp. 407-514. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
129. Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ. 1997. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science 278:631-37
130. Tekaia F, Lazcano A, Dujon B. 1999. The genomic tree as revealed from whole proteome comparisons. Genome Res. 9:550-57
131. Wang L-S, Warnow T. 2005. Distance-based genome rearrangement phylogeny. See Gascuel 2005, pp. 353-83
132. Wheeler WC. 2003. Iterative pass optimization of sequence data. Cladistics 19:254-60
133. Wiens JJ. 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52:528-38
134. Wiens JJ. 2005. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction? Syst. Biol. In press
135. Woese CR, Achenbach L, Rouviere P, Mandelco L. 1991. Archaeal phylogeny: reexamination of the phylogenetic position of Archaeoglobus fulgidus in light of certain composition-induced artifacts. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 14:364-71
136. Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Grishin NV, Koonin EV. 2002. Genome trees and the tree of life. Trends Genet. 18:472-79
137. Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Grishin NV, Tatusov RL, Koonin EV. 2001. Genome trees constructed using five different approaches suggest new major bacterial clades. BMC Evol. Biol. 1:8
138. Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV. 2004. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res. 14:29-36
139. Yang S, Doolittle RF, Bourne PE. 2005. Phylogeny determined by protein domain content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:373-78
140. Yang Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-96
141. Yoder AD, Irwin JA, Payseur BA. 2001. Failure of the ILD to determine data combinability for slow loris phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 50:408-24
142. York TL, Durrett R, Nielsen R. 2002. Bayesian estimation of the number of inversions in the history of two chromosomes. J. Comput. Biol. 9:805-18
143. Zelwer M, Daubin V. 2004. Detecting phylogenetic incongruence using BIONJ: an improvement of the ILD test. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33:687-93
144. Zhaxybayeva O, Lapierre P, Gogarten JP. 2004. Genome mosaicism and organismal lineages. Trends Genet. 20:254-60
145. Zheng XH, Lu F, Wang ZY, Zhong F, Hoover J, Mural R. 2004. Using shared genomic synteny and shared protein functions to enhance the identification of orthologous gene pairs. Bioinformatics 21:703-10