Model use in phylogenetics: nine key questions

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 87-94

  Kelchner, Scot A ^a   Thomas, Michael A ^a  

^a Nucl Eng Idaho State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; MODELING; PHYLOGENETICS;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; MUTATION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

EID: 33846277992     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.004     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Penny D., et al. Progress with methods for constructing evolutionary trees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7 (1992) 73-79
2. Steel M., and Penny D. Parsimony, likelihood, and the role of models in molecular phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17 (2000) 839-850
3. Tuffley C., and Steel M. Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull. Math. Biol. 59 (1997) 581-607
4. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies (2004), Sinauer
5. Swofford D.L., et al. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis D.M., et al. (Ed). Molecular Systematics (1996), Sinauer 407-514
6. Whelan S., et al. Molecular phylogenetics: state of the art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet. 17 (2001) 262-272
7. Posada D., and Buckley T.R. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 793-808
8. Sullivan J., and Joyce P. Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36 (2005) 445-466
9. Burnham K.P., and Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd edn (2002), Springer-Verlag
10. Johnson J.B., and Omland K.S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 101-108
11. Lewis P.O. Maximum likelihood as an alternative to parsimony for inferring phylogeny using nucleotide sequence data. In: Soltis D.E., et al. (Ed). Molecular Systematics of Plants II: DNA Sequencing (1998), Kluwer 132-163
12. Buckley T.R., et al. 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 (2001) 67-86
13. Buckley T.R., and Cunningham C.W. The effects of nucleotide substitution model assumptions on estimates of nonparametric bootstrap support. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 394-405
14. Phillips M.J., and Penny D. The root of the mammalian tree inferred from whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28 (2003) 171-185
15. Nei M. Relative efficiencies of different tree-making methods for molecular data. In: Miyamoto M.M., and Cracraft J. (Eds). Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences (1991), Oxford University Press 90-128
16. Sanderson M.J., and Kim J. Parametric phylogenetics?. Syst. Biol. 49 (2000) 817-829
17. Yang Z., et al. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: a peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44 (1995) 384-399
18. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 401-410
19. Kim J. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45 (1996) 363-374
20. Cunningham, et al. Best-fit maximum likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52 (1998) 978-987
21. Anderson F.E., and Swofford D.L. Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33 (2004) 440-451
22. Kuhner M.K., and Felsenstein J. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11 (1994) 459-468
23. Gaut B.S., and Lewis P.O. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12 (1995) 152-162
24. Yang Z. Among-site rate heterogeneity and its impact on phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11 (1996) 367-372
25. Soltis D.E., and Soltis P.S. Amborella not a 'basal angiosperm'? Not so fast. Am. J. Bot. 91 (2004) 997-1001
26. Stefanovic S., et al. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots?. BMC Evol. Biol. (2004) 10.1186/1471-2148/4/35
27. Collins T.M., et al. Compositional bias, character-state bias, and character-state reconstruction using parsimony. Syst. Biol. 43 (1994) 482-496
28. Lockhart P.J., et al. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11 (1994) 605-612
29. Galtier N., and Guoy M. Inferring pattern and process: maximum-likelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15 (1998) 871-879
30. Phillips M.J., et al. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 1455-1458
31. Sullivan J., and Swofford D.L. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution patterns are violated?. Syst. Biol. 50 (2001) 723-729
32. Lemmon A.R., and Moriarty E.C. The importance of proper model assumption in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 265-277
33. Nylander J.A.A., et al. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 47-67
34. Huelsenbeck J.P., and Rannala B. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 904-913
35. Posada D., and Crandall K.A. ModelTest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14 (1998) 817-818
36. Waddell P.J., et al. Hadamard conjugations and modeling sequence evolution with unequal rates across sites. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 8 (1997) 33-50
37. Goldman N. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36 (1993) 182-198
38. Huelsenbeck J.P., et al. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294 (2001) 2310-2314
39. Bollback J.P. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 1171-1180
40. Alfaro M.E., and Huelsenbeck J.P. Comparative performance of Bayesian and AIC-based measures of phylogenetic model uncertainty. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 89-96
41. Wakeley J. Substitution-rate variation among sites and the estimation of transition bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 3 (1994) 436-442
42. Naylor G.J.P., and Brown W.M. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47 (1998) 61-76
43. Delsuc F., et al. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (2005) 361-375
44. Brinkmann H., et al. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artifacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 743-757
45. Philippe H., et al. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1246-1253
46. Pupko T., et al. Combining multiple data sets in a likelihood analysis: which models are the best?. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 2294-2307
47. Wilgenbusch J., and de Queiroz K. Phylogenetic relationships among the phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogeneous evolutionary processes. Syst. Biol. 49 (2000) 592-612
48. Pagel M., and Meade A. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence of character-state data. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 571-581
49. Holder M., and Lewis P.O. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 (2003) 275-284
50. Minin V., et al. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 674-683
51. Abdo Z., et al. Accounting for uncertainty in the tree topology has little effect on the decision theoretic approach to model selection in phylogeny estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 691-703
52. Suchard M.A., et al. Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18 (2001) 1001-1013
53. Rokas A., et al. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425 (2003) 798-804
54. Rzhetsky A., and Nei M. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12 (1995) 131-151
55. Nei M., and Kumar S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics (2000), Oxford University Press
56. Kelsey C.R., et al. Different models, different trees: the geographic origin of PTLV-I. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13 (1999) 336-347
57. Graham S.W., et al. Rooting phylogenetic trees with distant outgroups: a case study from the commelinoid monocots. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 1769-1781
58. Sanderson M.J., and Doyle J.A. Sources of error and confidence intervals in estimating the age of angiosperms from rbcL and 18S rDNA data. Am. J. Bot. 88 (2001) 1499-1516
59. Kishino H., et al. Performance of a divergence time estimation method under a probabilistic model of rate evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18 (2001) 352-361
60. Sanderson M.J. A nonparametric approach to estimating divergence times in the absence of rate constancy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14 (1997) 1218-1231
61. Clark M.A., et al. Cospeciation between bacterial endosymbionts (Buchnera) and a recent radiation of aphids (Uroleucon) and pitfalls of testing for phylogenetic congruence. Evolution 54 (2000) 517-525
62. Buckley T.R. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: evidence from empirical data sets. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 509-523
63. Ronquist F. Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 475-481
64. Brandley M.C., et al. Partitioned Bayesian analyses, partition choice, and the phylogenetic relationships of scincid lizards. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 373-390
65. Philippe H., and Lopez P. On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem. Sci. 26 (2002) 414-416
66. Lockhart P., et al. Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eubacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (2006) 40-45