Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 225-231

  Jeffroy, Olivier ^a   Brinkmann, Henner ^a   Delsuc, Frédéric ^a   Philippe, Hervé ^a  

^a Universite de Montreal   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCATENATED DNA;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; NONHUMAN; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYLOGENETIC TREE CONSTRUCTION METHOD; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

GENOME, FUNGAL; GENOMICS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NUCLEOTIDES; PHYLOGENY; YEASTS;

EID: 33645850710     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2006.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Rokas A., and Carroll S.B. More genes or more taxa? The relative contribution of gene number and taxon number to phylogenetic accuracy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1337-1344
2. Rokas A., et al. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425 (2003) 798-804
3. Gee H. Evolution: ending incongruence. Nature 425 (2003) 782
4. Maddison W.P. Gene trees in species. Syst. Biol. 46 (1997) 523-536
5. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 401-410
6. Philippe H., et al. Phylogenomics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36 (2005) 541-562
7. Phillips M.J., et al. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 1455-1458
8. Ronquist F., and Huelsenbeck J.P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19 (2003) 1572-1574
9. Swofford, D.L. (2000) PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and Other Methods, 4b10 edn, Sinauer
10. Guindon S., and Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 696-704
11. Jobb G., et al. TREEFINDER: a powerful graphical analysis environment for molecular phylogenetics. BMC Evol. Biol. 4 (2004) 18
12. Whelan S., et al. Molecular phylogenetics: state-of-the-art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet. 17 (2001) 262-272
13. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies (2004), Sinauer Associates
14. Douzery E.J., et al. The timing of eukaryotic evolution: does a relaxed molecular clock reconcile proteins and fossils?. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 (2004) 15386-15391
15. Hillis D.M., and Bull J.J. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42 (1993) 182-192
16. Taylor D.J., and Piel W.H. An assessment of accuracy, error, and conflict with support values from genome-scale phylogenetic data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 1534-1537
17. Hasegawa M., and Hashimoto T. Ribosomal RNA trees misleading?. Nature 361 (1993) 23
18. Lockhart P., et al. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11 (1994) 605-612
19. Woese C.R., et al. Archaeal phylogeny: reexamination of the phylogenetic position of Archaeoglobus fulgidus in light of certain composition-induced artifacts. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 14 (1991) 364-371
20. Philippe H., et al. Comparison of molecular and paleontological data in diatoms suggests a major gap in the fossil record. J. Evol. Biol. 7 (1994) 247-265
21. Rosenberg M.S., and Kumar S. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 119-124
22. Philippe H., et al. Can the cambrian explosion be inferred through molecular phylogeny?. Development 120 (1994) S15-S25
23. Delsuc F., et al. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (2005) 361-375
24. Soltis D.E., et al. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and 'ending incongruence': a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 9 (2004) 477-483
25. Stefanovic, S. et al. (2004) Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol. Biol. DOI:10.1186/1471-2148-4-35 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/4/35)
26. Lockhart P.J., and Penny D. The place of Amborella within the radiation of angiosperms. Trends Plant Sci. 10 (2005) 201-202
27. Holland, B.R. et al. Improved consensus network techniques for genome-scale phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. (in press)
28. Brinkmann H., et al. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 743-757
29. Philippe H. Rodent monophyly: pitfalls of molecular phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 45 (1997) 712-715
30. Philippe H., et al. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1246-1253
31. Leebens-Mack J., et al. Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein zone. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1948-1963
32. Steel M. Should phylogenetic models be trying to 'fit an elephant'?. Trends Genet. 21 (2005) 307-309
33. Philippe H., et al. Early-branching or fast-evolving eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions. Proc R Soc London B 267 (2000) 1213-1221
34. Douady C.J., et al. Comparison of bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (2003) 248-254
35. Philippe H. MUST, a computer package of management utilities for sequences and trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 21 (1993) 5264-5272