Experimental design criteria in phylogenetics: Where to add taxa

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 609-622

  Geuten, Koen ^a,d   Massingham, Tim ^b   Darius, Paul ^a   Smets, Erik ^a,c   Goldman, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN BRANCH   (Netherlands)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

A optimality; D optimality; E optimality; Experimental design; Fisher information; Phylogenetics; Taxon sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; PLANT;

CLASSIFICATION; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; PLANTS;

ERICALES; SPERMATOPHYTA;

EID: 34547415681     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701499563     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Atkinson, G., and A. Donev. 1992. Optimum experimental designs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
2. Atteson, K. 1999. The performance of neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Algorithmica 25:251-278.
3. Chaloner, K., and I. Verdinelli. 1995. Bayesian experimental design: A review. Stat. Sci. 10:273-304.
4. Chaw, S.-M., C. L. Parkinson, Y. Cheng, T. M. Vincent, and J. D. Palmer. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three plant genomes: Monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales from conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:4086-1091.
5. Edwards, A. 1972. Likelihood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. ENCODE Project Consortium. (2007). Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1 % of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799-816.
7. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
8. Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
9. Fisher, R. A. 1926. The arrangement of field experiments. J. Ministry Agriculture Great Britain 33:503-513.
10. Fisher, R. A. 1935. The design of experiments. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
11. Gaut, B. S., and P. O. Lewis. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:152-162.
12. Geuten, K., A. Becker, K. Kaufmann, P. Caris, S. Janssens, T. Viaene, G. Theissen, and E. Smets. 2006. Petaloidy and petal identity MADS-box genes in the balsaminoid genera Impatiens and Marcgravia. Plant J. 47:501-518.
13. Geuten, K., E. Smets, P. Schols, Y.-M. Yuan, S. Janssens, P. Kupfer, and N. Pyck. 2004. Conflicting phylogenies of balsaminoid families and the polytomy in Ericales: Combining data in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 31:711-729.
14. Goldman, N. 1998. Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:1779-1786.
15. Goremykin, V. V., K. I. Hirsch-Ernst, S. Wolfi, and H. F. Hellwig. 2003. Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome sequence suggests that Amborella is not a basal angiosperm. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:1499-1505.
16. Graybeal, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
17. Hajibabaei, M., J. Xia, and G. Drouin. 2006. Seed plant phylogeny: Gnetophytes are derived conifers and a sister group to Pinaceae. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 40:208-217.
18. Hedtke, S. M., T. M. Townsend, and D. M. Hillis. 2006. Resolution of phylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxon sampling. Syst. Biol. 55:522-529.
19. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
20. Hillis, D. M., D. D. Pollock, J. A. McGuire, and D. J. Zwickl. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
21. Huson, D. H., S. M. Nettles, and T. J. Warnow. 1999. Disk-Covering, a fast-converging method for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. J. Comput. Biol. 6:369-386.
22. Jukes, T. H., and C. R. Cantor. 1969. Mammalian protein metabolism. Pages 21-132 in Evolution of protein molecules (H. N. Munro and J. B. Allison, eds). Academic Press, New York.
23. Kiefer, J. 1959. Optimal experimental design. J. Royal Stat. Soc. 21:272319.
24. Kim, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: Effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
25. Lyons-Weiler, J., and G. A. Hoelzer. 1997. Escaping from the Felsenstein zone by detecting long branches in phylogenetic data. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 8:375-384.
26. Martin, W., O. Deusch, N. Stawski, N. Grünheit, N., and V. Goremykin. 2005. Chloroplast genome phylogenetics: Why we need independent approaches to plant molecular evolution. Trends Plant Sci. 10:203-209.
27. Massingham, T., and N. Goldman. 2000. EDIBLE: Experimental design and information calculations in phylogenetics. Bioinformatics 16:294-295.
28. Mihaescu, R., D. Levy, and L. Pachter. 2006. Why neighbor-joining works. arXiv:cs.DS/0602041 v2 (http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DS/0602041).
29. Naylor, G. J. P., and W. M. Brown. 1998. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:61-76.
30. Nickerson, J., and G. Drouin. 2004. The sequence of the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II is a useful marker for inferring seed plant phylogeny. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 31:403-415.
31. Nylander, J. A. A. 2001. Taxon sampling in phylogenetic analysis: Problems and strategies reviewed. Introductory research essay no. 1, Department of Systematic Zoology, Uppsala University.
32. Pawitan, Y. 2001. In all likelihood: Statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
33. Philippe, H., F. Delsuc, H. Brinkmann, and N. Lartillot. 2005. Phylogenomics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:541-562.
34. Phillips, M. J., F. Delsuc, and D. Penny. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1455-1458.
35. Poe, S. 1998. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxonomic sampling. Syst. Biol. 47:18-21.
36. Poe, S. 2003. Evaluation of the strategy of long-branch subdivision to improve the accuracy of phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 52:423-428.
37. Pollock, D. D., and W. J. Bruno. 2000. Assessing an unknown evolutionary process: Effect of increasing site-specific knowledge through taxon addition. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1854-1858.
38. Pollock, D. D., D. J. Zwickl, J. A. McGuire, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51:664-671.
39. Ranwez, V., and O. Gascuel. 2002. Improvement of distance-based phylogenetic methods by a local maximum likelihood approach using triplets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1952-1963.
40. Ripley, B. D. 1987. Stochastic simulation. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
41. Rokas, A., B. Williams, N. King, and S. Carroll. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804.
42. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98:10751-10756.
43. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2003. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52:119-124.
44. Sanderson, M. J., M. F. Wojciechowski, J. M. Hu, T. S. Khan and S. G. Brady. 2000 Error, bias, and long-branch attraction in data for two chloroplast photosystem genes in seed plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:782-797.
45. Schadt, E., and K. Lange. 2002. Codon and rate variation models in molecular phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1534-1549.
46. Sempel, C., and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and Its Applications, 24. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
47. Soltis, D. E., V. A. Albert, V. Savolainen, K. Hilu, Y. L. Qiu, M. W. Chase, J. S. Farris, S. Stefanovic, D. W. Rice, J. D. Palmer, and P. S. Soltis. 2004. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": A cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 9:477-483.
48. Swofford, D. 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), version 4.0 beta. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
49. Swofford, D. L., P. J. Waddell, J. P. Huelsenbeck, P. G. Foster, P. O. Lewis, and J. S. Rogers. 2001. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst. Biol. 50:525-539.
50. Tamura, K., M. Nei, and S. Kumar. 2004. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101:11030-11035.
51. Wolfram, S. 2003. Mathematica, 5th Edition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
52. Yang, Z. 1996a. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. J. Mol. Evol. 42:294-307.
53. Yang, Z. 1996b. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
54. Yang, Z. 1997. PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. CABIOS 13:555-556.
55. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1995. Maximum likelihood trees from DNA sequences: A peculiar statistical estimation problem. Syst. Biol. 44:384-399.
56. Zaretskii, K. A. 1965. Constructing trees from the set of distances be-tween pendant vertices. Uspehi Mathematiceskih Nauk 20:90-92 (in Russian).
57. Zwickl, D. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:588-598.