Majority-rule supertrees

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 445-452

  Cotton, James A ^a,b   Wilkinson, Mark ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Consensus; Phylogeny; Symmetric difference metric; Tree of Life

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 34548566074     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701416682     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adams, E. N. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 21:390-397.
2. Avedisov, S. N., I. B. Rogozin, E. V. Koonin, and B. J. Thomas. 2001. Rapid evolution of a cyclin A inhibitor gene, roughex, in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:2110-2118. (Pubitemid 33026781)
3. Barthelemy, J. P., and F. R. McMorris. 1986. The median procedure for n-trees. J. Classif. 3:329-334.
4. Baum, B. R. 2002. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
5. Betrn, E., and M. Ashburner. 2000. Duplication, dicistronic transcription, and subsequent evolution of the alcohol dehydrogenase and alcohol dehydrogenase-related genes in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1344- 1352.
6. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: Assessing the qualitative support for MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol. 52:839- 848. (Pubitemid 38106049)
7. Bremer, K. 1990. Combinable component consensus. Cladistics 6:369- 372.
8. Bryant, D. 1997. Building trees, hunting for trees and comparing trees. PhD thesis. Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
9. 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.
10. Consantinescu, M., and D. Sankoff. 1995. An efficient algorithm for supertrees. J. Classif. 12:101-112.
11. 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.
12. Cotton, J. A., C. S. C. Slater, and M. Wilkinson. 2006. Discriminating supported and unsupported relationships in supertrees using triplets. Syst. Biol. 55:345-350.
13. Creevey, C. J., D. A. Fitzpatrick, G. K. Philip, R. J. Kinsella, M. J. O'Connell, M. M. Pentony, S. A. Travers, M. Wilkinson, and J. O. Mclnerney. 2004. Does a tree-like phylogeny exist only at the tips in the Prokaryotes? Proc. R. Soc. B 271:2552-2558.
14. Creevey, C. J., and J. O. Mclnerney. 2004. Clann: Investigating phylogenetic information using supertree analyzes. Bioinformatics 21:390- 392. (Pubitemid 40246612)
15. Day, W. H. E., and F. R. McMorris. 2003. Axiomatic consensus theory in group choice and biomathematics. Frontiers in applied mathematics, volume 39. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
16. Eulenstein, O., D. Chen, J. G. Burleigh, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M.J. Sanderson. 2004. Performance of flip supetree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53:299-308. (Pubitemid 38611184)
17. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
18. Goloboff, P. A. 2005. Minority-rule supertrees? MRP, Compatibility, and MinFlip may display the least frequent groups. Cladistics 21:282-294. (Pubitemid 41537317)
19. Goloboff, P. A., and D. Pol. 2002. Semistrict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514-525.
20. Gordon, A. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:335-348.
21. Kwiatowski, J., D. Skarecky, K, Bailey, and F. J, Ayala. 1994, Phytogeny of DwwpMto and related genera inferred from the nucleotide-sequence of the Cu£h Sod gene J, Mol. Evol. 38:443-454 (Pubitemid 24129629)
22. Margush, T, and E R. McMorris. 1981. Consensus ja-trees. Bull. Math. Biol. 43239-244.
23. Meacham, C A. 19S3. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatibility of qualitative taxonomic characters. Pages 304- 314 (Numerical taxonomy 0- Febenstein, ed.), NATO ASI series, volume G1. SpringerAferlag, Berlin.
24. Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. Lect Notes Comput Sd. 2452537-551.
25. Pisani, D., and M. Wilkinson. 2032. MRP, total evidence and taxonomic congruence. Syst Biol. 51:151-155.
26. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representations of trees. Mol. Phytogenet Evol. 153-58.
27. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Boulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Btasri. 53:131-147. (Pubitemid 11129084)
28. Rodrigo, A. G. 19%. On combining dadograms. Taxon 45: 267-274.
29. Semp- C, and M. Steel. 2090. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discr. Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
30. Semple, C. and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
31. Strimmer, R., and A. von Haesseler. 1996. Quartet puzzling: A quartet maximum4ikelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol, Biol. EvoL 13,964-969.
32. Tatarenkov, A, J. Kwiatowski, D. Skarecky, E, Barrio, and F. J. Ayala. 1999. On the evolution of Dopa dwarboxylase (Ddc) and Drosophila systematics. J. Mol, Evol. 48:445-162.
33. Wilkinson, M. 1996. Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping. Mol, Biol. Eivol. 13:437-444. (Pubitemid 26066095)
34. Wilkinson, M., and J. A. Cotton. 2006. Supertree methods for building the tree of life: Divide-and-ixmquer approaches to large phylogenetic problems. Pages 61-76 or Towards the Tree of Life: Taxonomy and Systematics of large and species rich taxa (T. Hodkinson, J. PamelL and S. Wahlren, eds,). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
35. Lapointe, C, Levasseur, J, O, Mcljiemey, 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)
36. Wilkinson, M, J, A, Cotton, F,-J, La|>ointef and D, Pisani, 2007, Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting. Syst Biol. 56:330- 337
37. 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)