Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 330-337

  Wilkinson, Mark ^a   Cotton, James A ^a   Lapointe, François Joseph ^b   Pisani, Davide ^a,c  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; CONSENSUS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

CLASSIFICATION; CONSENSUS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 34447284787     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701245370     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Adams, E. N. 1986. N-trees as nestings: Complexity, similarity and consensus. J. Classif. 3:299-317.
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 M. J. Sanderson. 2001. An assessment of the accuracy of MRP supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-579.
5. Bryant, D. 1997. Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees. Ph.D. thesis. Dept. of Mathematics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. [www.mcb.mcgill.ca/-bryant/HomePage/Papers/mainUS.pdf]
6. Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. Pages 163-183 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
7. Cardillo, M., O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, E. Boakes, and A. Purvis. 2004. A species-level phylogenetic supertree of marsupials J. Zool. 264:11-31. (Pubitemid 39246912)
8. Chen, D., O. Eulenstein, and D. Fernandez-Baca. 2004. Rainbow: A toolbox for phylogenetic supertree construction and analysis. Bioinformatics 20: 2872-2873. (Pubitemid 39530186)
9. Chen, D., L. Diao, O. Eulenstein, D. Fenández-Baca, and M. J. Sanderson. 2003. Flipping: A supertree construction method. Pages 135-160 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
10. Cotton, J. A., and R. D. M. Page. 2004. Tangled trees from molecular markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. Pages 107-125 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
11. Creevey, C. J., and J. O. Mclnerney. 2005. Clann: Investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21:390-392. (Pubitemid 40246612)
12. Day, W. H. E., and F. R. McMorris. 2003a. Axiomatics in group choice and bioconsensus. Pages 3-35 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
13. Day, W. H. E., and F. R. McMorris. 2003b. Axiomatic consensus theory in group choice and bioinformatics. SIAM Frontiers in Applied Mathematics; 29.
14. Eulenstein, O., D. Chen, J. G. Burleigh, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M. J. Sanderson. 2004. Performance of flip-supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53:299-308. (Pubitemid 38611184)
15. Goloboff, 2005. Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups. Cladistics 21:282-294.
16. Goloboff, P. A., and D. Pol. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514-525. (Pubitemid 36374534)
17. Gordon, A. D. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:31-39.
18. Huson, D. H., Dezulian, T, Klöpper, T, and M. A. Steel. 2004. Phylogenetic super-networks from partial trees. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinformatics 1:151-158. (Pubitemid 40325592)
19. Lapointe, F.-J., and C. Levasseur. 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. Pages 87-105 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
20. Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 2452:537-551.
21. Pisani, D. 2002. Comparing and combining trees and data in phylogenetic analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
22. Pisani, D., and M. Wilkinson. 2002. MRP, taxonomic congruence and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51:151-155.
23. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phy. Evol. 1:53-58.
24. Ross, H. A., and A. G. Rodrigo. 2004. An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. Pages 35-63 in Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the Tree of Life (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.); Computational Biology, V.4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
25. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
26. Steel, M. A., A. W. M. Dress, and S. Böker. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Syst. Biol. 49:363-368.
27. Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
28. Thorley, J. L., and R. D. M Page. 2000. RadCon: Phylogenetic tree comparison and consensus. Bioinformatics 16:486-487. (Pubitemid 30487971)
29. Thorley, J. L., and M. Wilkinson. 2003. A view of supertree methods. Pages 185-193 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
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. Mclnerney, D. Pisani, and J. L. Thorley. 2005a. The shape of supertrees to come: Tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 54:419-431. (Pubitemid 41040441)
32. Wilkinson, M., D. Pisani, J. A. Cotton, and I. Corfe. 2005b. Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst. Biol. 54:823-831. (Pubitemid 43142298)
33. Wilkinson, M., and J. L. Thorley. 2003. Reduced consensus. Pages 195-203 in Bioconsensus (M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts, eds.). DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
34. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. Pisani, F.-J. Lapointe, and J. O. Mclnerney. 2004. 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.