Phylogenetic mixtures on a single tree can mimic a tree of another topology

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 767-775

  Matsen, Frederick A ^a   Steel, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Mixture model; Model identifiability; Phylogenetics; Sequence evolution

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 38449104891     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701627304     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Allman, E. S., and J. A. Rhodes. 2006. The identifiability of tree topology for phylogenetic models, including covarion and mixture models. J. Comput. Biol. 13:1101-1113. (Pubitemid 43993453)
2. Baldauf, S. L., A. J. Roger, I. Wenk-Siefert, and W. F. Doolittle. 2000. A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data. Science 290:972-977.
3. Chang, J. T. 1996. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math. Biosci. 134:189-215. (Pubitemid 26147968)
4. Degnan, J. H., and N. A. Rosenberg. 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2:762-768. (Pubitemid 43794324)
5. Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
6. Gadagkar, S. R., and S. Kumar. 2005. Maximum likelihood outperforms maximum parsimony even when evolutionary rates are heterotachous. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:2139-2141. (Pubitemid 41437794)
7. Goremykin, V. V., B. Holland, K. I. Hirsch-Ernst, and F. H. Hellwig. 2005. Analysis of Acorus calamus chloroplast genome and its phylogenetic implications. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1813-1822. (Pubitemid 41191508)
8. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
9. Jeffroy, O., H. Brinkmann, F. Delsuc, and H. Philippe. 2006. Phylogenomics: The beginning of incongruence? Trends Genet. 22:225-231.
10. Kim, J. 2000. Slicing hyperdimensional oranges: The geometry of phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:58-75.
11. Kolaczkowski, B., and J. W. Thornton. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-984. (Pubitemid 39434418)
12. Matsen, F. A., E. Mossel, and M. Steel. 2007. Mixed-up trees: The structure of phylogenetic mixtures, http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4328
13. Mossel, E., and M. Steel. 2004. A phase transition for a random cluster model on phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 187:189-203. (Pubitemid 38096340)
14. Mossel, E., and M. Steel. 2005. How much can evolved characters tell us about the tree that generated them? Pages 384-412 in Mathematics of evolution and phylogeny (O. Gascuel, ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
15. Mossel, E., and E. Vigoda. 2005. Phylogenetic MCMC algorithms are misleading on mixtures of trees. Science 309:2207-2209. (Pubitemid 41396068)
16. Moulton, V., and M. Steel. 2004. Peeling phylogenetic "oranges." Adv. Appl. Math. 33:710-727.
17. Ochman, H., J. G. Lawrence, and E. A. Groisman. 2000. Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature 405:299-304. (Pubitemid 30337055)
18. Pagel, M., and A. Meade. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst. Biol. 53:571-581. (Pubitemid 39290200)
19. Philippe, H., Y. Zhou, H. Brinkmann, N. Rodrigue, and F. Delsuc. 2005. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol. Biol. 5:50.
20. Phillips, M. J., F. Delsuc, and D. Penny. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1455-1458. (Pubitemid 38823748)
21. Rokas, A., B. L. Williams, N. King, and S. B. Carroll. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798-804. (Pubitemid 37355944)
22. Ruano-Rubio, V., and M. Fares. 2007. Artifactual phylogenies caused by correlated distribution of substitution rates among sites and lineages: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Syst. Biol. 56:68-82.
23. Semple, C, and M. Steel. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, volume 24. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
24. Simon, C, L. Nigro, J. Sullivan, K. Holsinger, A. Martin, A. Grapputo, A. Franke, and C. Mclntosh. 1996. Large differences in substitutional pattern and evolutionary rate of 12S ribosomal RNA genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:923-932. (Pubitemid 26284908)
25. Spencer, M., E. Susko, and A. J. Roger. 2005. Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1161-1164. (Pubitemid 40577753)
26. Springer, M. S., and E. Douzery 1996. Secondary structure and patterns of evolution among mammalian mitochondrial 12S rRNA molecules. J. Mol. Evol. 43:357-373. (Pubitemid 26337545)
27. Steel, M. 2005. Should phylogenetic models be trying to "fit an elephant"? Trends Genet. 21:307-309. (Pubitemid 40726382)
28. Steel, M. A., L. A. Szekely, and M. D. Hendy. 1994. Reconstructing trees when sequence sites evolve at variable rates. J. Comput. Biol. 1:153 - 163.
29. StefankoviC, D., and E. Vigoda. 2007a. Phylogeny of mixture models: Robustness of maximum likelihood and non-identifiable distributions. J. Comput. Biol. 14:156-189. (Pubitemid 46709353)
30. Stefankovif, D., and E. Vigoda. 2007b. Pitfalls of heterogeneous processes for phylogenetic reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 56:113-124.
31. Sturmfels, B., and S. Sullivant. 2005. Toric ideals of phylogenetic invariants. J. Comput. Biol. 12:204-228. (Pubitemid 40444588)
32. Thornton, J. W., and B. Kolaczkowski. 2005. No magic pill for phylogenetic error. Trends Genet. 21:310-311. (Pubitemid 40726383)
33. Wang, H. C, M. Spencer, E. Susko, and A. Roger. 2007. Testing for covarion-like evolution in protein sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:294- 305. (Pubitemid 46026302)