Challenges of phylogenetic analyses of aDNA sequences

Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz

Volumn 101, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2006, Pages 9-13

  Dittmar, Katharina ^a,c   De Souza, Sheila Mendonça ^b   Araújo, Adauto ^b  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

Author keywords

aDNA; Informative characters; Methods; Missing data; Phylogenetics

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846412640     PISSN: 00740276     EISSN: 16788060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0074-02762006001000003     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Anderson JS 2001. The phylogenetic trunk: maximal includion of taxa with missing data in an analysis of the Lepospondyli (Vetrebrata, Tetrapoda). Syst Biol 50: 170-193.
2. Austin JJ, Ross AJ, Smith AB, Fortey RA, Thomas RH 1997b. Problems of reproducibility - Does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects? Proc Roy Soc Lond (B Biol Sci) 264: 467-474.
3. Austin JJ, Smith AB, Thomas RH 1997a. Palaeontology in a molecular world: the search for authentic ancient DNA. TREE 12: 303-306.
4. Bremer K 1995. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10: 295-304.
5. Cameron S, Miller K, D.Haese C, Whiting MF, Barker S 2004. Mitochondrial genome data alone are not enough to unambiguously resolve the relationships of Enthognatha, Insecta and Crustacea sensu lato (Arthropoda). Cladistics 20: 534-557.
6. Cooper A, Poinar H 2000. Do it right or not at all. Science 289: 530-531.
7. Cooper A, Lalueza-Fox C, Anderson S, Rambaut A, Austin J, Ward R 2001. Complete mitochondrial genome sequences of two extinct moas clarify ratite evolution. Nature 409: 704-707.
8. DeSalle R, Brower AWZ 1997. Process partitions, congruence and the independence of characters: inferring relationships among closely related hawaiian Drosophila from multiple gene regions. Syst Biol 46: 751-764.
9. Dittmar K, Mamat U, Whiting M, Goldmann T, Reinhard K, Guillen S 2003. Techniques of aDNA studies on prehispanic ectoparasites (Pulex sp., Pulicidae, Siphonaptera) from animal mummies of the Chiribaya Culture, Southern Peru. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 98 (Suppl. I): 53-58.
10. Dolphin K, Belshaw R, Orme CDL, Quicke DLJ 2000. Noise and incongruence: interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol Phylogenet Evol 17: 401-406.
11. Dowton M, Austin AD 2002. Increased congruence does not necessarily indicate increased phylogenetic accuracy - The behavior of the incongruence length difference test in mixed-model analyses. Syst Biol 51: 19-31.
12. Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Kluge AM, Bult C 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10: 3 15-319.
13. Gatesy J, O.Grady P, Baker RH 1999. Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 15: 271-314.
14. Greenwood A, Capelli C, Possnert G, Pääbo S 1999. Nuclear aDNA sequences from late pleistocene megafauna. Mol Biol Evol 16: 1466-1473.
15. Handt O, Hoss M, Krings M, Pääbo S 1994. Ancient DNA: methodological challenges. Experientia 50: 524-529.
16. Handt O, Krings M, Ward RH, Pääbo S 1996. The retrieval of ancient human DNA sequences. Am J Hum Genet 59: 368-376.
17. Hofreiter M, Serre D, Poinar H, Kuch M, Pääbo S 2001. Ancient DNA. Nat Rev Genet 2: 353-359.
18. Huelsenbeck JP 1991. When are fossils better than extant taxa in Phylogenetic analysis? Syst Zool 40: 458-469.
19. Lambkin CL, Lee MSY, Winterton SL, Yeates DK 2002. Partitioned Bremer support and multiple trees. Cladistics 18: 436-444.
20. Lyons-Weiler J, Hoelzer GA, Tausch RJ 1996. Relative apparent synapomorphy analysis (RASA). I: The statistical measurement of phylogenetic signal. Mol Biol Evol 13: 749-757.
21. Nixon K, Carpenter JM 1996. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 12: 221.
22. Nixon K, Wheeler QD 1992. Extinction and the origin of species. In MJ Nowaczek, QD Wheeler (eds), Extinction and Phylogeny, Columbia University Press, New York, p. 119-143.
23. Pickett KM, Tolman GL, Wheeler WC, Wenzel JC 2005. Parsimony overcomes statistical inconsistency with the addition of more data from the same gene. Cladistics 21: 438-445.
24. Poinar HN, Stankiewicz BA 1999. Protein preservation and DNA retrieval from ancient tissues. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 96: 8426-8431.
25. Poinar HN, Hoss M, Bada JL, Pääbo S 1996. Amino acid racemization and the preservation of ancient DNA. Science 272: 864-866.
26. Philippe H, Snell EA, Bapteste E, Lopez P, Holland PWH, Casane D 2004. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol Biol Evol 21:1740-1752.
27. Shimodaira H, Hashegawa M 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol 16: 1114-1116.
28. Simmons MP, Randle CP, Freudenstein JV, Wenzel JW 2002. Limitations of relative apparent synapomorphy analysis (RASA) for measuring phylogenetic signal. Mol Biol Evol 19: 14-23.
29. Sorenson MD 1999. TreeRot, version 2, Boston University, Boston.
30. Swofford DL 2002. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and other methods), version 4.0b8. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachussetts.
31. Wiens JJ 1998. Combining datasets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst Biol 47: 568-581.
32. Wiens JJ 2003. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst Biol 52: 528-538.
33. Wiens JJ 2005. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. J Biomed Inform 39: 34-42.