Discriminating supported and unsupported relationships in supertrees using triplets

Systematic Biology

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 345-350

  Cotton, James A ^a   Slater, Claire S C ^a,b   Wilkinson, Mark ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; PHYLOGENY;

MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 33745007116     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150500481556     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Aho, A. V., Y. Sagiv, T. G. Szymanski, and J. Ullman. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of conditional expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10:405-421.
2. Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
3. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: Assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol. 52:839-848. (Pubitemid 38106049)
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and H. N. Bryant. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analysis. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508. (Pubitemid 128451088)
5. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-175. (Pubitemid 29238032)
6. Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10:295-304.
7. Bryant, D. 1997. Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury.
8. Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. Pages 163-185 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. Roberts, eds.). American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
9. Bryant, D., and M. Steel. 1995. Extension operations on sets of leaf-labelled trees. Adv. Appl. Math. 16:425-153.
10. Davies, T. J., T. G. Barraclough, M. W. Chase, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and V. Savolainen. 2004. Darwin's abominable mystery: Insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101:1904-1909. (Pubitemid 38232637)
11. Dekker, M. 1986. Reconstruction methods for derivation trees. Master's thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
12. Garey, M. R., and D. S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
13. Gordon, A. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:335-348.
14. Grotkopp, E., M. Rejmnek, M. J. Sanderson, and T. L. Rost. 2004. Evolution of genome size in pines (Pinus) and its life-history correlates: Supertree analyses. Evolution 58:1705-1729.
15. Huber, K. T., V. Moulton, C. Semple, and M. Steel. 2005. Recovering a phylogenetic tree using pairwise closure operations. Appl. Math. Lett. 18:361-366. (Pubitemid 40245116)
16. Kennedy, M., and R. D. M. Page. 2002. Seabird supertrees: Combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. Auk 119:88-108. (Pubitemid 34231482)
17. Larget, B., and D. L. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759. (Pubitemid 29260829)
18. Maddison, W. P. 1989. Reconstructing character evolution on polytomous cladograms. Cladistics 5:365-377.
19. Meacham, C. A. 1983. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatability of quantitative taxonomic characters. Pages 304-314 in Numerical taxonomy (J. Felsenstein, ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
20. Nelson, G., and P. Ladiges. 1994. Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. Pages 193-209 in Models in phylogeny reconstruction (R. W. Scotland, D. J. Seibert, and D. M. Williams, ed.). Clarendon, Oxford.
21. Ng, M. P., and N. C. Wormald. 1996. Reconstruction of rooted trees from subtrees. Discrete Appl. Math. 69:19-31. (Pubitemid 126392458)
22. Pisani, D., and M. Wilkinson. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51:151-155. (Pubitemid 35169412)
23. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
24. Salamin, N., and T. J. Davies. 2004. Using supertrees to investigate species richness in grasses and flowering plants. Pages 461-487 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
25. Semple, C, and M. Steel. 2001. Tree reconstruction via a closure operation on partial splits. Pages 126-134 in Proceedings of Journeys Ouvertes: Biologie, informatique et mathematiques (O. Gascuel and M.-F. Sagot, eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2066. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
26. Semple, C, and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Steel, M. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9:91-116.
28. Stoner, C. J., O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, and T. M. Caro. 2003. The adaptive significance of coloration in Lagomorphs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 79:309-328. (Pubitemid 36720215)
29. Thorley, J. L. 2000. Cladistic information, leaf stability and supertree construction. PhD thesis, University of Bristol.
30. Wilkinson, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation - reduced adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43:343-368. (Pubitemid 24976651)
31. Wilkinson, M., J. A. Cotton, C. Creevey, O. Eulenstein, S. R. Harris, F.-J. Lapointe, C. Levasseur, J. O. McInerney, D. Pisani, and J. L. Thorley. 2005a. The shape of supertrees to come: Tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 54:419-432.
32. Wilkinson, M., J. A. Cotton, and J. L. Thorley. 2004a. The information content of trees and their matrix representations. Syst. Biol. 53:989-1001. (Pubitemid 40141321)
33. Wilkinson, M., D. Pisani, J. A. Cotton, and I. Corfe. 2005b. Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst. Biol. 54:823-883.
34. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. T. J. Littlewood, and R. A. Bray. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of the platyhelminthes? Pages 292-301 in Interrelationships of the Platyhelmnithes (D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray, eds.). Chapman-Hall, London.
35. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. Pisani, F.-J. Lapointe, and J. O. McInerney. 2004b. Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. Pages 227-246 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.