Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 1459-1461

  Holland, Barbara R ^a   Huber, Katharina T ^b,c   Moulton, Vincent ^c   Lockhart, Peter J ^a  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS SEQUENCE; GENE LOCUS; GENOME; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYLOGENY; SPECIES; YEAST;

GENOME, FUNGAL; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; YEASTS;

EID: 3042637206     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh145     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Aguilar, J. F., J. A. Rossello, and G. N. Feliner. 1999. Nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) concerted evolution in natural and artificial hybrids of Armeria (Plumbaginaceae). Mol. Ecol. 8:1341-1346.
2. Bandelt, H.-J. 1995. Combination of data in phylogenetic analysis. Plant Syst. Evol. (suppl) 9:355-361.
3. Bandelt, H-J., P. Forster, and A. Rohl. 1999. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:37-48.
4. 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. 33:265-89.
5. Buckler, E. S., A. Ippolito, and T. P. Holtsford. 1997. The evolution of ribosomal DNA: divergent paralogues and phylogenetic implications. Genetics 145:821-832.
6. Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. Pp. 1-21 in M. Janowitz, F. J. Lapointe, F. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. Roberts, eds. Bioconsensus. American Mathematical Society Publications-DIMACS (Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science), Piscataway, NJ.
7. Holland, B., and V. Moulton. 2003. Consensus networks: a method for visualising incompatibilities in collections of trees. Pp. 165-176 in G. Benson and R. Page, eds. Algorithms in bioinformatics, WABI 2003. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
8. Huber, K. T., V. Moulton, P. J. Lockhart, and A. Dress. 2001. Pruned median networks: A technique for studying plant speciations. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 19:302-310.
9. Huelsenbeck, J. P., J. J. Bull, and C. W. Cunningham. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:152-158.
10. Moores, A., and E. C. Holmes. 2000. The evolution of base composition and phylogenetic inference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:365-369.
11. Penny, D., L. R. Foulds, and M. D. Hendy. 1982. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from 5 different protein sequences. Nature 297:197-200.
12. Rokas, A., B. L. Williams, N. King, and S. B. Carroll. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-803.
13. Ronquist, F., and J. P. Huelsenbeck. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572-1574.
14. Steel, M. A., D. Huson, and P. J. Lockhart. 2000. Invariable site models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 49:225-232.
15. Yang, Z. H. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.