A bias in ML estimates of branch lengths in the presence of multiple signals

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 239-242

  Penny, David ^a   White, W T ^a   Hendy, Mike D ^a   Phillips, Matthew J ^a,b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Maximum likehood estimation; Mixture models; Multiple signals

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; HYBRIDIZATION; MODEL; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; TECHNIQUE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA;

EID: 38949097786     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msm263     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Allman ES, Rhodes JA. 2006. The identifiability of tree topology for phylogenetic models, including covarion and mixture models. J Comp Biol. 13(5):1101-1113.
2. Bandelt H-J, Dress AWD. 1992. A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set. Adv Math. 92:47-105.
3. Buckley TR. 2002. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: evidence from empirical data sets. Syst Biol. 51:509-523.
4. Chang JT. 1996. Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. Math Biosci. 137:51-73.
5. Chor B, Holland BR, Penny D, Hendy MD. 2000. Multiple maxima of likelihood in phylogenetic trees: an analytic approach. Mol Biol Evol. 17:1529-1541.
6. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA. 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2:e68.
7. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A, Shapiro B, Pybus OG. 2005. Bayesian coalescent inference of past population dynamics from molecular sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1185-1192.
8. Gaut BS, Lewis PO. 1995. Success of maximum-likelihood phylogeny inference in the 4-taxon case. Mol Biol Evol. 12:152-162.
9. Graham RL, Foulds LR. 1982. Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time. Math Biosci. 60:133-142.
10. Hendy MD, Penny D. 1993. Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data. J Classif. 10:5-24.
11. Hendy MD, Penny D, Steel MA. 1994. Discrete Fourier spectral analysis of evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 91:3339-3343.
12. Holland BR, Huber KT, Moulton V, Lockhart PJ. 2004. Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol. 23:848-855.
13. Huber KT, Langton M, Penny D, Moulton V, Hendy M. 2002. SpectroNet: a package for computing spectra and median networks. Appl Bioinformatics. 1:159-161.
14. Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis D, et al. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the 4-taxon case. Syst Biol. 42:247-264.
15. Huson DH, Bryant D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol. 23:254-267.
16. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature. 431:980-984.
17. Lento GM, Hickson RE, Chambers GK, Penny D. 1995. Use of spectral analysis to test hypotheses on the evolutionary origin of the pinnipeds. Mol Biol Evol. 12:28-52.
18. Lockhart PJ, Larkum AWD, Steel MA, Waddell PJ, Penny D. 1996. Evolution of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll: the problem of invariant sites in sequence analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93:1930-1934.
19. Lockhart PJ, Penny D, Hendy MD, Howe CJ, Beanland TJ, Larkum AWD. 1992. Controversy on chloroplast origins. FEBS Lett. 301:127-131.
20. Martin DP, Williamson C, Posada D. 2005. RDP2: recombination detection and analysis from sequence alignments. Bioinformatics. 21:260-262.
21. Matsen FA, Steel M. 2007. Phylogenetic mixtures on a single tree can mimic a tree of another topology. Syst Biol. 56:767-775.
22. Pagel M, Meade A. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or characterstate data. Syst Biol. 53:571-581.
23. Penny D, Hendy MD, Steel MA. 1992. Progress with evolutionary trees. Trends Ecol Evol. 7:73-79.
24. Phillips MJ, Delsuc F, Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny: sampling and systematic errors are both important. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1455-1458.
25. Rannala B. 2002. Identifiability of parameters in MCMC Bayesian inference in phylogeny. Syst Biol. 51:754-760.
26. Steel M. 2005. Should phylogenetic models be trying to fit an elephant? Trends Genet. 21:307-309.
27. Stefankovic D, Vigoda E. 2007. Pitfalls of heterogeneous processes for phylogenetic reconstruction. Syst Biol. 56:113-124.
28. Strimmer K, Moulton V. 2000. Likelihood analysis of phylogenetic networks using directed graphical models. Mol Biol Evol. 17:875-881.
29. Sullivan J, Swofford DL. 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated. Syst Biol. 50:723-729.
30. Swofford DL. 2001. PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) ver 4.0b8. Sunderland (UK): Sinauer Associates.
31. White WT, Hill SF, Gaddam R, Holland BR, Penny D. 2007. Treeness triangles: visualizing the loss of phylogenetic signal. Mol Biol Evol. 24:2029-2039.