Multilevel comparison of dendrograms: A new method with an application for genetic classifications

Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Podani, János ^a   Engloner, Attila ^a   Major, Agnes ^b  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^b DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Phragmites australis< em>; Clonal diversity; Hierarchical clustering; Microsatellites; Partitions; Rand index; RAPD

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSENSUS SEQUENCE; GENETIC ALGORITHM; MICROSATELLITE MARKER; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; RANDOM AMPLIFIED POLYMORPHIC DNA; ALGORITHM; CLASSIFICATION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; POACEAE; POPULATION GENETICS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS;

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS, POPULATION; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; PHYLOGENY; POACEAE; RANDOM AMPLIFIED POLYMORPHIC DNA TECHNIQUE; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT;

EID: 67249089901     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15446115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1544-6115.1443     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Arabie, P. & S. A. Boorman. 1973. Multidimensional scaling of measures of distance between partitions. J. Math. Psychol. 10: 148-203.
2. Brun, M., C. D. Johnson & K. S. Ramos. 2005. Clustering: revealing intrinsic dependencies in microarray data. In: E. R. Dougherty et al. (eds), Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics. Hindawi, New York. pp. 129-162.
3. Day, W. H. E. 1981. The complexity of computing metric distances between partitions. Math. Social Sci. 1: 269-287.
4. Downton, M. & T. Brennan. 1980. Comparing classifications: an evaluation of several coefficients of partition agreement. Classification Soc. Bull. 4 (4):53-54.
5. Engloner, A., Á. Major & J. Podani. 2009. Genetic diversity in declining reed stands and its dependence on water depth, as detected by three different genetic methods. MS submitted to Aquatic Bot.
6. Fowlkes, E. B. & C. L. Mallows. 1983. A method for comparing two hierarchical clusterings. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 78: 553-584.
7. Gordon, A.D. 1999. Classification. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London.
8. Guo, W., R. Wang, S. Zhou, S. Zhang & Z. Zhang. 2003. Genetic diversity and clonal structure of Phragmites australis in the Yellow River delta of China. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 31:1093-1109.
9. Hubert, L. & P. Arabie. 1985. Comparing partitions. J. Classification 2:193-218.
10. Jardine, N. & R. Sibson. 1971. Mathematical Taxonomy. Wiley, London.
11. Laurentin, H. 2009. Data analysis for molecular characterization of plant genetic resources. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. DOI 10.1007/s10722-008- 9397-8
12. Milligan, G. W. & M. C. Cooper. 1986. A study of the comparability of external criteria for hierarchical cluster analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 21: 441-458.
13. Morey, L. & A. Agresti. 1984. The measurement of classification agreement: an adjustment to the Rand statistic for chance agreement. Educ. Psychol. Measurement 44: 33-37.
14. Neumann, D. A. 1983. Faithful consensus methods for n-trees. Math. Biosci. 63: 271-287.
15. Neumann, D. A. & V. T. Norton. 1986. Clustering and isolation in the consensus problem for partitions. J. Classification 3: 281-297.
16. Podani, J. 1986. Comparison of partitions in vegetation studies. Abstracta Botanica 10: 235-290.
17. Podani J. 2000a. Simulation of random dendrograms and comparison tests: some comments. J. Classification 17:123-142.
18. Podani, J. 2000b. Introduction to the Exploration of Multivariate Biological Data. Backhuys, Leiden.
19. Podani, J. 2001. SYN-TAX 2000. Computer Programs for Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics. User's Manual. Scientia, Budapest.
20. Podani, J. 2009. DENCOMPAR: Computer Program for Multilevel Dendrogram Comparison. Users Manual. Available at http://ramet.elte.hu/∼podani
21. Podani, J. & T. A. Dickinson. 1984. Comparison of dendrograms: a multivariate approach. Can. J. Bot. 62:2765-2778.
22. Rand, W. M. 1971. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 66: 846-850.
23. nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco.
24. Sokal, R. R. & F. J. Rohlf. 1962. The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11: 33-40.
25. Van de Peer, Y. 2003. Phylogeny inference based on distance methods. In: Salemi, M. and A-M. Vandamme (eds), The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to DNA and Protein Phylogeny. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. pp. 101-119.
26. Weising, K., H. Nybom, K. Wolff & G. Kahl. 2005. DNA Fingerprinting in Plants: Principles, Methods, and Applications. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton.