ML or NJ-MCL? A comparison between two robust phylogenetic methods

Computational Biology and Chemistry

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 373-378

  Som, Anup ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROSTOCK   (Germany)

^b University of Houston   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Concatenation approach; Maximum composite likelihood; Maximum likelihood; Phylogenetics; Topological distance

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CONCATENATION APPROACH; MAXIMUM COMPOSITE LIKELIHOOD; PHYLOGENETICS; TOPOLOGICAL DISTANCE;

COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; JOINING;

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETIC DATABASE; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, GENETIC; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 70349207042     PISSN: 14769271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2009.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bapteste E., Brinkmann H., Lee A.J., Moore D.V., Sensen C.W., Gordon P., Durufle L., Gaasterland T., Lopez P.M., Muller, and Philippe H. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (2002) 1414-1419
2. Bull J.J., Huelsenbeck J.P., Cunningham C.W., Swofford D.L., and Waddell P.J. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42 (1993) 384-397
3. Cartwright R.A. DNA assembly with gaps (Dawg): simulating sequence evolution. Bioinformatics 21 (2005) iii31-iii38
4. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 401-410
5. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39 (1985) 783-791
6. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies (2004), Singular Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts
7. Gadagkar S.R., Rosenberg M.S., and Kumar S. Inferring species phylogenies from multiple genes: concatenated sequence tree versus consensus gene tree. J. Exp. Zool. (MOL DEV EVOL) 304B (2005) 64-74
8. Guindon S., and Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52 5 (2003) 696-704
9. Guindon S., Lethiec F., Duroux P., and Gascuel O. PHYML online-a web server for fast maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic inference. Nucleic Acids Res. 33 (2005) W557-W559 (Web Server issue)
10. Jin L., and Nei M. Limitations of the evolutionary parsimony method of phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 7 (1990) 82-102
11. Kumar S., and Gadagkar S.R. Efficiency of the neighbor-joining method in reconstructing deep and shallow evolutionary relationships in large phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 51 (2000) 544-553
12. Kumar S., Dudley J., Nei M., and Tamura K. MEGA: A biologist-centric software for evolutionary analysis of DNA and protein sequences. Brief. Bioinform. 9 (2008) 299-306
13. Murphy W.J., Eizirik E., Johnson W.E., Zhang Y.P., Ryder O.A., and O'Brien S.J. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409 (2001) 614-618
14. Nishihara H., Okada N., and Hasegawa M. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8 (2007) R199
15. Page R., and Holmes E. Molecular Evolution: A Phylogenetic Approach (1998), Blackwell, Osney Mead, Oxford, UK
16. Robinson D.F., and Foulds L.R. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53 1-2 (1981) 131-147
17. Rokas A., Williams B.L., King N., and Carroll S.B. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425 (2003) 798-804
18. Saitou N., and Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4 (1987) 406-425
19. Sanderson M.J., Driskell A.C., Ree R.H., Eulenstein O., and Langley S. Obtaining maximal concatenated phylogenetic data sets from large sequence databases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (2003) 1036-1042
20. Springer M.S., Murphy W.J., Eizirik E., and O'Brien S.J. Placental mammal diversification and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 3 (2003) 1056-1061
21. Soltis P.S., Soltis D.E., and Chase M.W. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402 (1999) 402-404
22. Som A., and Fuellen G. The effect of heterotachy in multigene analysis using the neighbor joining method. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52 (2009) 846-851
23. Swofford D.L., Olsen G., Waddel P., and Hillis D.M. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis D.M., Moritz C., and Mable B.K. (Eds). Pages in Molecular systematics. second ed. (1996), Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts
24. Tamura K., and Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10 (1993) 512-526
25. Tamura K., Nei M., and Kumar S. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the Neighbor-Joining method. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (2004) 11030-11035
26. Tamura K., Dudley J., Nei M., and Kumar S. MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24 (2007) 1596-1599
27. Uzzell T., and Corbin K. Fitting discrete probability distributions to evolutionary events. Science 172 (1971) 1089-1096
28. Yang Z. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11 (1996) 367-372