Data partitions and complex models in Bayesian analysis: The phylogeny of gymnophthalmid lizards

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 448-469

  Castoe, Todd A ^a   Doan, Tiffany M ^b   Parkinson, Christopher L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b VASSAR COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Autocorrelated gamma; Bayesian analysis; Combining data; Gymnophthalmidae; Likelihood models; Partitioning data; Reptilia; Site specific gamma

Indexed keywords

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA; RIBOSOME RNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA SEQUENCE; GENETICS; LIZARD; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; ONCOGENE; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DNA, MITOCHONDRIAL; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, MOS; LIZARDS; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; RNA, RIBOSOMAL; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY;

GYMNOPHTHALMIDAE; REPTILIA; SQUAMATA;

EID: 3242695950     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490445797     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at statistical model identification. IEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Alfaro, M. E., S. Zoller, and F. Lutzoni. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and Bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:255-266.
3. Arévalo, E. S., S. K. Davis, and J. W. Sites Jr. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence and phylogenetic relationships among eight chromosome races of the Sceloporus grammicus complex (Phrynosomatidae) in central Mexico. Syst. Biol. 43:387-418.
4. Buckley, T. R. 2002. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: Evidence from empirical data sets. Syst. Biol. 51:509-523.
5. Buckley, T. R., and C. W. Cunningham. 2002. The effects of nucleotide substitution model assumptions on estimates of nonparametric bootstrap support. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:394-405.
6. Buckley, T. R., C. Simon, and G. K. Chambers. 2001. Exploring among-site rate variation models in a maximum likelihood framework using empirical data: Effects of model assumptions on estimates of topology, branch lengths, and bootstrap support. Syst. Biol. 50:67-86.
7. Carlin, B. P., and T. A. Louis. 1996. Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis. Chapman and Hall, New York.
8. Caterino, M. S., R. D. Reed, M. M. Kuo, and F. A. H. Sperling. 2001. A partitioned likelihood analysis of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst. Biol. 50:106-127.
9. Cummings, M. P., S. A. Handley, D. S. Meyers, D. L. Reed, A. Rokas, and K. Winka. 2003. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 52:477-487.
10. Dixon, M. T., and D. M. Hillis. 1993. Ribosomal RNA secondary structure: Compensatory mutations and implications for phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:256-267.
11. Doan, T. M. 2003a. A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus, and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 137:101-115.
12. Doan, T. M. 2003b. A south-to-north biogeographic hypothesis for Andean speciation: Evidence from the lizard genus Proctoporus (Reptilia, Gymnophthalmidae). J. Biogeography 30:361-374.
13. Doan, T. M., and T. A. Castoe. 2003. Using morphological and molecular evidence to infer species boundaries within Proctoporus bolivianus Werner (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae). Herpetologica 59:433-450.
14. Douady, C. J., F. Delsuc, Y. Boucher, W. F. Doolittle, and E. J. P. Douzery. 2003. Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:248-254.
15. Erixon, S. P., B. Britton, and B. Oxelman. 2003. Reliability of Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap frequencies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 52:665-673.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1968. Statistical inference and the estimation of phylogenies. University of Chicago, Chicago.
17. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
18. Fukami-Kobayashi, K., and Y. Tateno. 1991. Robustness of maximum likelihood tree estimation against different patterns of base substitutions. J. Mol. Evol. 32:79-91.
19. Gasser, R. B., X. Zhu, N. B. Chilton, L. A. Newton, T. Nedergaard, and P. Guldberg. 1998. Analysis of sequence homogenization in rDNA arrays of Haemonchus contortus by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 19:2391-2395.
20. Gene Codes Corp. 1996. Sequencher, version 3.1. Gene Codes, Ann Arbor.
21. Gonzales, I. L., and J. E. Sylvester. 2001. Human rRNA: Evolutionary patterns within genes and tandem arrays derived from multiple chromosomes. Genomics 73:255-263.
22. Gutell, R. R. 1994. Collection of small subunit (16S and 16S-like) ribosomal RNA structures. Nucleic Acid Res. 22:3502-3507.
23. Gutell, R. R., N. Larsen, and C. R. Woese. 1994. Lessons from an evolving rRNA: 16S and 23S rRNA structures from a comparative perspective. Microbiol. Rev. 58:10-26.
24. Harris, D. J. 2003. Codon bias variation in C-mos between squamate families might distort phylogenetic inferences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 27:540-544.
25. Herron, M. D., T. A. Castoe, and C. L. Parkinson, in press. Sciurid phylogeny and the paraphyly of Holarctic ground squirrels (Spermophilus). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
26. Hickson, R., C. Simon, A. Cooper, G. Spicer, J. Sullivan, and D. Penny. 1996. Conserved sequence motifs, alignment, and secondary structure for the third domain of animal 12s rRNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:150-169.
27. Hillis, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
28. Hillis, D. M., and J. J. Bull. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
29. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
30. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1997. Is the Felsenstein zone a fly trap? Syst. Biol. 46:69-74.
31. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:698-707.
32. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and K. A. Crandall. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:437-466.
33. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, R. Miller, and F. Ronquist. 2002. Potential applications and pitfalls of bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:673-688.
34. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
35. Huelsenbeck, J. P., R. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, and J. Rollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impacts on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
36. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409:860-921.
37. Kelly, C., and J. Rice. 1996. Modeling nucleotide evolution: A heterogeneous rate analysis. Math. Biosci. 133:85-109.
38. Kimura, M. 1986. The role of compensatory neutral mutations in molecular evolution. J. Genetics 64:7-19
39. Krajewski, C., M. G. Fain, L. Buckley, and D. G. King. 1999. Dynamically heterogeneous partitions and phylogenetic inference: An evaluation of analytical strategies with cytochrome b and ND6 gene sequences in cranes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13:302-313.
40. Leaché, A. D., and T. W. Reeder. 2002. Molecular systematics of the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches. Syst. Biol. 51:44-68.
41. Long, E. O., and I. B. Dawid. 1980. Repeated genes in eukaryotes. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 49:727-764.
42. Minin, V., Z. Abdo, P. Joyce, and J. Sullivan. 2003. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52:674-683.
43. Miyata, T. 1982. Evolutionary changes and functional constraints in DNA sequences. Pages 233-266 in Molecular evolution, protein polymorphism and the neutral allele theory (M. Kimura, ed.). Japan Scientific Press, Tokyo.
44. Moncalvo, J. M., D. Drehmel, and R. Vilgalys. 2000. Variation in modes and rates of evolution in nuclear and mitochondrial ribosomal DNA in the mushroom genus Aminita (Agaricales, Basidiomycota): Phylogenetic implications. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:48-63.
45. Muse, S. V. 1995. Evolutionary analyses when nucleotides do not evolve independently. Pages 115-124 in Current topics on molecular evolution (M. Nei and N. Takahata, eds.). Institute on Molecular Evolution and Genetics, University Park, PA.
46. Myers, C. W., and M. A. Donnelly. 2001. Herpetofauna of the Yutajé-Corocoro Massif, Venezuela: Second report from the Robert G. Goelet American Museum-Terramar expedition to the northwestern tepuis. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 261:1-85.
47. Nielsen, R. 1997. Site-by-site estimation of the rate of substitution and the correlation of rates in mitochondrial DNA. Syst. Biol. 46:346-353.
48. Nicholas, K. B., and H. B. Nicholas, Jr. 1997. GeneDoc: A tool for editing and annotating multiple sequence alignments. Distributed by the author at: www.cris.com/~Ketchup/genedoc.shtml.
49. Nylander, J. A. A., F. Ronquist, J. P. Huelsenbeck, and J. L. Nieves-Aldrey. 2004. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53:47-67.
50. Pamilo, P., and M. Nei. 1988. Relationships between gene trees and species trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:568-583.
51. Pardue, M. L. 1974. Localization of repeated DNA sequences in Xenopus chromosomes. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 38:475-482.
52. Parkinson, C. L. 1999. Molecular systematics and biogeographical history of pitvipers as determined by mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Copeia 1999:576-586.
53. Parkinson, C. L., S. M. Moody, and J. E. Alquist. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships of the 'Agkistrodon Complex' based on mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Pages 63-78 in Venomous snakes: Ecology, evolution, and snakebite (R. S. Thorpe, W. Wüster, and A. Malhotra, eds.). Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
54. Pellegrino, K. C. M., M. T. Rodrigues, Y. Yonenaga-Yassuda, and J. W. Sites Jr. 2001. A molecular perspective on the evolution of microteiid lizards (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae), and a new classification for the family. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 74:315-338.
55. Penny, D., B. J. McComish, M. A. Carleston, and M. D. Hendy. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: The covarion model of molecular evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 53:711-723.
56. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. Model-Test: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
57. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
58. Pupko, T., D. Huchon, Y. Cao, N. Okada, and M. Hasegawa. 2002. Combining multiple data sets in a likelihood analysis: Which models are the best? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2294-2307.
59. Rannala, B. 2002. Identifiability of parameters in MCMC Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:754-760.
60. Rogers, J. S. 2001. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogenetic trees in consistent when substitution rates vary according to the invariable sites plus gamma distribution. Syst. Biol. 50:713-722.
61. Saint K. M., C. C. Austin, S. C. Donnellan, and M. N. Hutchinson. 1998. C-mos, a nuclear marker useful for squamate phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 10:259-263.
62. Savill, N. J., D. C. Hoyle, and P. G. Higgs. 2001. RNA sequence evolution with secondary structure constraints: Comparison of substitution rate models using maximum-likelihood methods. Genetics 157:399-411.
63. Schöniger, M., and A. von Haeseler. 1994. A stochastic model and the evolution of autocorrelated DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 3:240-247.
64. Schwarz, G. 1974. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6:461-464.
65. Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Brespi, H. Liu, and P. Flook. 1994. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved PCR primers. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 87:651-701.
66. StatSoft, Inc. 1993. Statistica for Windows, release 4.5. StatSoft, Tulsa.
67. Sullivan, J., J. A. Markert, and C. William Kilpatrick. 1997. Phylogeography and molecular systematics of the Peromyscus aztecus species group (Rodentia: Muridae) inferred using parsimony and likelihood. Syst. Biol. 46:426-440.
68. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 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.
69. Suzuki, Y., G. V. Glazko, and M. Nei. 2002. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99:16138-16143.
70. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), version 4.0b10, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
71. Tavaré, S. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Pages 57-86 in Some mathematical questions in biology - DNA sequence analysis (R. M. Miura, ed.). American Math Society, Providence, RI.
72. Titus, T. A., and D. R. Frost. 1996. Molecular homology assessment and phylogeny in the lizard family Opluridae (Squamata: Iguania). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6:49-62.
73. Wald, A. 1949. Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate. Ann. Math. Stat. 20:595-601.
74. Wilcox, T. P., D. J. Zwickl, T. A. Heath, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the dwarf boas and a comparison of Bayesian and bootstrap measures of phylogenetic support. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25:361-371.
75. Wu, C. I. 1991. Inferences of species phylogeny in relation to segregation of ancient polymorphisms. Genetics 127:429-435.
76. Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites: Approximate methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
77. Yang, Z. 1995. A space-time process model for the evolution of DNA sequences. Genetics 139:993-1005.
78. Yang, Z. 1996a. Maximum likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
79. Yang, Z. 1996b. Among-site rate variation and its impacts on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:367-372.
80. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1994. Comparison of models for nucleotide substitution used in maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:316-324.
81. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1995. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: A peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44:384-399.