On reduced amino acid alphabets for phylogenetic inference

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 2139-2150

  Susko, Edward ^a   Roger, Andrew J ^b  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Amino acid alphabets; Compositional heterogeneity; Markov models; Protein evolution

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID; MITOCHONDRIAL PROTEIN; NUCLEAR PROTEIN; VEGETABLE PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHLOROPLAST; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETICS; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; PLANT; PROBABILITY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; AMINO ACIDS; ANIMALS; CHLOROPLASTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MARKOV CHAINS; MITOCHONDRIAL PROTEINS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; NUCLEAR PROTEINS; PHYLOGENY; PLANT PROTEINS; PLANTS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN;

EID: 35748943561     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msm144     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ababneh F, Jermiin LS, Ma C, Robinson J. 2006. Matched-pairs tests of homogeneity with applications to homologous nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 22:1225-1231. (Pubitemid 43779015)
2. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA. 1972. Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. United States Department of Commerce. Washington (DC): U.S. Government Printing Office.
3. Cannata N, Toppo S, Romualdi C, Valle G. 2002. Simplifying amino acid alphabets by means of a branch and bound algorithm and substitution matrices. Bioinformatics. 18:1102-1108. (Pubitemid 34919231)
4. Dopazo H, Dopazo J. 2005. Genome-scale evidence of the nematode-arthropod clade. Genome Biol. 6:R41.
5. Dayhoff MO, Schwartz RM, Orcutt BC. 1978. A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In: Dayhoff MO, editor. Atlas of protein sequence and structure. Vol. 5, supplement 3. Silver Spring (MD): National Biomedical Research Foundation. p. 345-352.
6. Embley TM, van der Giezen M, Horner DS, Dyal PL, Foster P. 2003. Mitochondria and hydrogenosomes are two forms of the same fundamental organelle. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 358:191-203. (Pubitemid 36178228)
7. Foster P, Hickey DA. 1998. Compositional bias may affect both DNA-based and protein-based phylogenetic reconstructions. J Mol Evol. 48:284-290.
8. Goremykin V, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Wolfl S, Hellwig FH. 2003. Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome sequence suggests that Amborella is not a basal angiosperm. Mol Biol Evol. 20:1499-1505. (Pubitemid 37082584)
9. Goremykin V, Hirsch-Ernst KI, Wolfl S, Hellwig FH. 2004. The chloroplast genome of Nymphaea alba: whole-genome analyses and the problem of identifying the most basal angiosperm. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1445-1454. (Pubitemid 38823747)
10. Grantham R. 1974. Amino acid difference formula to help explain protein evolution. Science. 185:862-864.
11. Higgs PG, Attwood TK. 2005. Bioinformatics and molecular evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
12. Ho SYW, Jermiin LS. 2004. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. Syst Biol. 53:623-637. (Pubitemid 39301078)
13. Hrdy I, Hirt RP, Dolezal P, Bardonova L, Foster PG, Tachezy J, Embley TM. 2004. Trichomonas hydrogenosomes contain the NADH dehydrogenase module of mitochondrial complex I. Nature. 432:618-622. (Pubitemid 39626267)
14. Huelsenbeck J. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst Biol. 44:17-48.
15. Jermiin L, Ho SY, Ababneh F, Robinson J, Larkum AW. 2004. The biasing effect of compositional heterogeneity on phylogenetic estimates may be underestimated. Syst Biol. 53:638-643. (Pubitemid 39290203)
16. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. CABIOS. 8:275-282.
17. Jukes TH, Cantor CR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN, editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York: Academic Press. p. 21-123.
18. Keilson J. 1979. Markov chain models-rarity and exponentiality. New York: Springer-Verlag.
19. Kishino H, Miyata T, Hasegawa M. 1990. Maximum likelihood inference of protein phylogeny and the origin of chloroplasts. J Mol Evol. 30:151-160. (Pubitemid 20261943)
20. Kosiol C, Goldman N, Buttimore NH. 2003. A new criterion and method for amino acid classification. J Theor Biol. 228:97-106.
21. Leebens-Mack J, Raubeson LA, Cui L, Kuehl JV, Fourcade MH, Chumley TW, Boore JL, Jansen RK, dePamphlis CW. 2005. Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein zone. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1948-1963. (Pubitemid 41298063)
22. Lockhart P, Penny D. 2005. The place of Amborella within the radiation of angiosperms. Trends Plant Sci. 10:201-202. (Pubitemid 40607965)
23. Martin W, Deusch O, Stawski N, Grünheit N, Goremykin V. 2005. Chloroplast genome phylogenetics: why we need independent approaches to plant molecular evolution. Trends Plant Sci. 10:1360-1385.
24. Miyazawa S, Jernigan RL. 1996. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term. J Mol Biol. 256:623-644. (Pubitemid 26107211)
25. Orengo C, Jones D, Thornton J. 2003. Bioinformatics: genes proteins and computers. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers.
26. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa. Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1246-1253. (Pubitemid 40577762)
27. Phillips MJ, Penny D. 2003. The root of the mammalian tree inferred from whole mitochondrial genomes. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 28:171-185. (Pubitemid 37446823)
28. R Development Core Team. 2007. R:a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing;.[cited 2005 May 30]. Available from: http://www.R-project.org.
29. Rambaut A, Grassly NC. 1997. Seq-gen: an application for the monte carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput Appl Biosci. 13:235-38. (Pubitemid 27249927)
30. Shi X, Gu H, Susko E, Field C. 2005. The comparison of confidence regions in phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol. 22: 2285-2296.
31. Soltis D, Albert V, Savolainen V, et al. (11 co-authors). 2004. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and ending incongruence: a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci. 9:477-483. (Pubitemid 39301185)
32. Susko E, Spencer M, Roger AJ. 2005. Biases in phylogenetic estimation can be caused by random sequence segments. J Mol Evol. 61:351-359. (Pubitemid 41355860)
33. Turbeville JM, Linford LS, Rivera MC, Garey JR, Raff RA, Lake JA. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature. 387:489-493. (Pubitemid 27235464)
34. Waddell PJ, Steel MA. 1997. General time-reversible distances with unequal rates across sites: mixing C and inverse gaussian distributions with invariant sites. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 8:398-414. (Pubitemid 127347898)
35. Wang J, Wang W. 1999. A computational approach to simplifying the protein folding alphabet. Nat Struct Biol. 6: 1033-1038. (Pubitemid 29519597)
36. Weiss G, von Haeseler A. 2003. Testing substitution models within a phylogenetic tree. Mol Biol. Evol. 20:572-578. (Pubitemid 36437907)
37. Wenzel JW, Siddall ME. 1999. Noise. Cladistics. 15:51-64. (Pubitemid 29337900)
38. Yang Z, Nielsen R, Hasegawa M. 1998. Models of amino acid substitution and applications to mitochondrial protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 15:1600-1611. (Pubitemid 28550985)