A likelihood look at the supermatrix-supertree controversy

Gene

Volumn 441, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 119-125

  Ren, Fengrong ^a   Tanaka, Hiroshi ^a   Yang, Ziheng ^b,c  

^a TOKYO MEDICAL AND DENTAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Combined analysis; Likelihood; Likelihood supertree; Supermatrix; Supertree

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE LOCUS; GENETIC VARIABILITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MOLECULAR CLOCK; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 67249107923     PISSN: 03781119     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2008.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adachi J., and Hasegawa M. MOLPHY Version 2.3: Programs for Molecular Phylogenetics Based on Maximum Likelihood. Computer Science Monographs vol. 28 (1996), Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo 1-150
2. Baum B. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41 (2002) 3-10
3. Berry V., and Semple C. Fast computation of supertrees for compatible phylogenies with nested taxa. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 270-288
4. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life (2004), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
5. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. The evolution of supertrees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 315-322
6. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. Supertree construction in the genomic age. Methods Enzymol. 395 (2005) 745-757
7. Bininda-Emonds O.R.P., Gittleman J.L., and Steel M. The (super)tree of life: procedures, problems and prospects. Ann. Rev. Ecolog. Syst. 33 (2002) 265-289
8. Bofkin L., and Goldman N. Variation in evolutionary processes at different codon positions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24 (2007) 513-521
9. Buckley T.R., Simon C., and Chambers G.K. Exploring among-site rate variation models in a maximum likelihood framework using empirical data: effects of model assumptions on estimates of topology, branch lengths, and bootstrap support. Syst. Biol. 50 (2001) 67-86
10. Burleigh J.G., Driskell A.C., and Sanderson M.J. Supertree bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome-scale data sets. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 426-440
11. Creevey C.J., and McInerney J.O. Clann: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 390-392
12. Criscuolo A., Berry V., Douzery E.J., and Gascuel O. SDM: a fast distance-based approach for (super) tree building in phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 740-755
13. de Queiroz A., and Gatesy J. The supermatrix approach to systematics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 (2007) 34-41
14. Drummond A.J., Ho S.Y.W., Phillips M.J., and Rambaut A. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4 (2006) e88
15. Edwards A.W.F. Likelihood (1992), John Hopkins University Press, London
16. Eulenstein O., et al. Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 299-308
17. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17 (1981) 368-376
18. Felsenstein J. Taking variation of evolutionary rates between sites into account in inferring phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 53 (2001) 447-455
19. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies (2004), Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
20. Gatesy J., Matthee C., DeSalle R., and Hayashi C. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 652-664
21. Gatesy J., Baker R.H., and Hayashi C. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 342-355
22. Goloboff P.A. Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups. Cladistics 21 (2005) 282-294
23. Goloboff P.A., and Pol D. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18 (2002) 514-525
24. Hillis D.M. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47 (1998) 3-8
25. Huelsenbeck J.P. The robustness of two phylogenetic methods: four-taxon simulations reveal a slight superiority of maximum likelihood over neighbor joining. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12 (1995) 843-849
26. Huelsenbeck J.P., Bull J.J., and Cunningham C.W. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11 (1996) 152-158
27. Huson D.H., Nettles S.M., and Warnow T.J. Disk-covering, a fast-converging method for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. J. Comput. Biol. 6 (1999) 369-386
28. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitution through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16 (1980) 111-120
29. Kuhner M.K., and Felsenstein J. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates (Erratum in Mol. Biol. Evol. 1995; 12:525). Mol. Biol. Evol. 11 (1994) 459-468
30. Leigh J.W., Susko E., Baumgartner M., and Roger A.J. Testing congruence in phylogenomic analysis. Syst. Biol. 57 (2008) 104-115
31. Moore B.R., Smith S.A., and Donoghue M.J. Increasing data transparency and estimating phylogenetic uncertainty in supertrees: approaches using nonparametric bootstrapping. Syst. Biol. 55 (2006) 662-676
32. Nishihara H., Okada N., and Hasegawa M. Rooting the Eutherian tree - the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8 (2007) R199
33. Nylander J.A.A., Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P., and Nieves-Aldrey J.L. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 47-67
34. Philippe H., Lartillot N., and Brinkmann H. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1246-1253
35. Pisani D., and Wilkinson M. MRP, taxonomic congruence and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 151-155
36. Poe S., and Swofford D.L. Taxon sampling revisited. Nature 398 (1999) 299-300
37. Pollock D.D., Zwickl D.J., McGuire J.A., and Hillis D.M. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 664-671
38. Pupko T., et al. Combining multiple data sets in a likelihood analysis: which models are the best?. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 2294-2307
39. Ragan M.A. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1 (1992) 53-58
40. Rannala B., and Yang Z. Phylogenetic inference using whole genomes. Ann. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. (2008)
41. Rannala B., Huelsenbeck J.P., Yang Z., and Nielsen R. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of large phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 47 (1998) 702-709
42. Ren F., Tanaka H., and Yang Z. An empirical examination of the utility of codon-substitution models in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 808-818
43. Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P., and Britton T. Bayesian supertree. In: Bininda-Emonds O.R.P. (Ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life (2004), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands 193-224
44. Rosenberg M.S., and Kumar S. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 119-124
45. Sanderson M.J. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 (1998) 105-109
46. Sanderson M.J., et al. Obtaining maximal concatenated phylogenetic data sets from large sequence databases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (2003) 1036-1042
47. Semple C., and Steel M. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105 (2000) 147-158
48. Shapiro B., Rambaut A., and Drummond A.J. Choosing appropriate substitution models for the phylogenetic analysis of protein-coding sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (2006) 7-9
49. Simon C., et al. Incorporating molecular evolution into phylogenetic analysis, and a new compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers for animal mitochondrial DNA. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37 (2006) 545-579
50. Springer M.S., and de Jong W.W. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up?. Science 291 (2001) 1709-1711
51. Suchard M.A., Kitchen C.M., Sinsheimer J.S., and Weiss R.E. Hierarchical phylogenetic models for analyzing multipartite sequence data. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 649-664
52. Tateno Y., Takezaki N., and Nei M. Relative efficiencies of the maximum-likelihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum-parsimony methods when substitution rate varies with site. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11 (1994) 261-277
53. Thorne J.L., Kishino H., and Painter I.S. Estimating the rate of evolution of the rate of molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15 (1998) 1647-1657
54. Wiens J.J. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction?. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 731-742
55. Wilkinson M., et al. The shape of supertrees to come: tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 419-431
56. Yang Z. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J. Mol. Evol. 39 (1994) 306-314
57. Yang Z. Evaluation of several methods for estimating phylogenetic trees when substitution rates differ over nucleotide sites. J. Mol. Evol. 40 (1995) 689-697
58. Yang Z. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42 (1996) 587-596
59. Yang Z. PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13 (1997) 555-556
60. Yang Z. A heuristic rate smoothing procedure for maximum likelihood estimation of species divergence times. Acta Zoologica Sinica 50 (2004) 645-656
61. Yang Z. Computational Molecular Evolution (2006), Oxford University Press, Oxford, England
62. Yang Z., and Rannala B. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (2006) 212-226
63. Zwickl D.J., and Hillis D.M. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51 (2002) 588-598