Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogenous

Nature

Volumn 431, Issue 7011, 2004, Pages 980-984

  Kolaczkowski, Bryan ^a   Thomton, Joseph W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MARKOV PROCESSES; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL METHODS; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS; PHYLOGENETICS;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

DNA;

EVOLUTION; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETICS;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; EVOLUTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PARAMETRIC TEST; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SIMULATION; SPECIES COMPARISON; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREE;

BAYES THEOREM; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MARKOV CHAINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 7244221755     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature02917     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Sanderson, M. J. & Kim, J. Parametric phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 49, 817-829 (2000).
2. Hillis, D. M., Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Cunningham, C. W. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264, 671-677 (1994).
3. Felsenstein, J. Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27, 401-410 (1978).
4. Kuhner, M. K. & Felsenstein, J. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11, 459-468 (1994).
5. Huelsenbeck, J. P. Systematic bias in phylogenetic analysis: is the Strepsiptera problem solved? Syst. Biol. 47, 519-537 (1998).
6. Gaut, B. S. & Lewis, P. O. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12, 152-162 (1995).
7. Huelsenbeck, J. P. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 698-707 (2002).
8. Miyamoto, M. M. & Fitch, W. M. Testing the covarion hypothesis of molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12, 503-513 (1995).
9. Lopez, P., Casane, D. & Philippe, H. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 1-7 (2002).
10. Fitch, W. M. The molecular evolution of cytochrome c in eukaryotes. J. Mol. Evol. 8, 13-40 (1976).
11. Pollock, D. D., Taylor, W. R. & Goldman, N. Coevolving protein residues: maximum likelihood identification and relationship to structure. J. Mol. Biol. 287, 187-198 (1999).
12. Pupko, T. & Galtier, N. A covarion-based method for detecting molecular adaptation: application to the evolution of primate mitochondrial genomes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1313-1316 (2002).
13. Inagaki, Y., Susko, E., Fast, N. M. & Roger, A. J. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites Microsporidia and Archaebacteria in EF-1{alpha} phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1340-1349 (2004).
14. Lockhart, P. J. et al. A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 1183-1188 (1998).
15. Misof, B. et al. An empirical analysis of mt 16S rRNA covarion-like evolution in insects: site-specific rate variation is clustered and frequently detected. J. Mol. Evol. 55, 460-469 (2002).
16. Philippe, H. & Lopez, P. On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem. Sci. 26, 414-416 (2001).
17. Donaldson, T. S. Robustness of the F-test to errors of both kinds and the correlation between the numerator and denominator of the F-ratio. J. Am. Star. Assoc. 63, 660-676 (1968).
18. Sullivan, J. & Swofford, D. L. 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 (2001).
19. Hillis, D. M. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47, 3-8 (1998).
20. Chang, J. T. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math. Biosci. 134, 189-215 (1996).
21. Rokas, A., Williams, B. L., King, N. & Carroll, S. B. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425, 798-804 (2003).
22. Russo, C. A., Takezaki, N. & Nei, M. Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 525-536 (1996).
23. Delarbre, C., Gallut, C., Barriel, V., Janvier, P. & Gachelin, G. Complete mitochondrial DNA of the hagfish, Eptatretus burgeri: the comparative analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences strongly supports the cyclostome monophyly. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22, 184-192 (2002).
24. Naylor, G. J. & Brown, W. M. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47, 61-76 (1998).
25. Tuffley, C. & Steel, M. Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull. Math. Biol. 59, 581-607 (1997).
26. Swofford, D. L. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and Other Methods, v.4.0b10 (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1998).
27. Yang, Z. PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13, 555-556 (1997).
28. Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17, 754-755 (2001).
29. Posada, D. & Crandall, K. A. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817-818 (1998).
30. Swofford, D. L. et al. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst. Biol. 50, 525-539 (2001).