Phylogenetic tree reconstruction accuracy and model fit when proportions of variable sites change across the tree

Systematic Biology

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 288-297

  Grievink, Liat Shavit ^a   Penny, David ^b   Hendy, Michael D ^b   Holland, Barbara R ^b  

^a HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Covarion model; Heterotachy; Model fit; Phylogenetics; Simulation; Taxon sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES;

BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, GENETIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 77950837347     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syq003     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Ane C, Burleigh J.G., McMahon M.M., Sanderson M.J. 2005. Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: a new statistical test. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:914-924.
3. Bollback J.P. 2002. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1171-1180.
4. FitchW.M., Markowitz E. 1970. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem. Genet. 4:579-593.
5. Gadagkar S.R., Kumar S. 2005. Maximum likelihood outperforms maximum parsimony even when evolutionary rates are heterotachous. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:2139-2141.
6. Germot A., Philippe H. 1999. Critical analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny: a case study based on the HSP70 family. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 46:116-124.
7. Gittenberger E., Piel W.H., Groenenberg D.S.J. 2004. The Pleistocene glaciations and the evolutionary history of the polytypic snail species Arianta arbustorum (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Helicidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30:64-73.
8. Goldman N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
9. Gruenheit N., Lockhart P.J., Steel M., Martin W. 2008. Difficulties in testing for covarion-like properties of sequences under the confounding influence of changing proportions of variable sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1512-1520.
10. Hampl V., Vrlik M., Cepicka I., Pecka Z., Kulda J., Tachezy J. 2006. Affiliation of Cochlosoma to trichomonads confirmed by phylogenetic analysis of the small-subunit rRNA gene and a new family concept of the order Trichomonadida. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56:305-312.
11. Heath T.A., Zwickl D.J., Kim J., Hillis D.M. 2008. Taxon sampling affects inferences of macroevolutionary processes from phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 57:160-166.
12. Holland B.R., Penny D., Hendy M.D. 2003. Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock-a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 52:229-238.
13. Huelsenbeck J.P. 2002 Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:698-707.
14. Huelsenbeck J.P., Larget B., Miller R.E., Ronquist F. 2002. Potential applications and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 51:673-688.
15. Inagaki Y., Susko E., Fast N.M., Roger A.J. 2004. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1 alpha phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1340-1349.
16. Jeffreys H. 1961. Theory of probability. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appendix B.
17. Jukes T.H., Cantor C.R. 1969. Evolution of protein sequences. In: Munro, H.N., editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York: Academic Press. p. 21-123.
18. Kass R.E., Raftery A.E. 1995. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90: 773-795.
19. Kolaczkowski B., Thornton J.W. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature. 431:980-984.
20. Kolaczkowski B., Thornton J.W. 2008. A mixed branch length model of heterotachy improves phylogenetic accuracy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1054-1066.
21. Lockhart P., Novis P., Milligan B.G., Riden J., Rambaut A., Larkum T. 2006 Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eubacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23:40-45.
22. Lockhart P.J., Steel M.A. 2005. A tale of two processes. Syst. Biol. 54:948-951.
23. Lopez P., Casane D., Philippe H. 2002. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1-7.
24. Minin V., Abdo Z., Joyce P., Sullivan J. 2003. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52:674-683.
25. Pagel M., Meade A. 2008. Modelling heterotachy in phylogenetic inference by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B. Biol. Sci. 363:3955-3964.
26. Philippe H., Lopez P. 2001. On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem. Sci. 26:414-416.
27. Philippe H., Zhou Y., Brinkmann H., Rodrigue N., Delsuc F. 2005. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol. Biol. 5:50.
28. Posada D., Buckley T.R. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst. Biol. 53: 793-808.
29. Posada D., Crandall K.A. 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 14:817-818.
30. Rambaut A., Drummond A. 2007. Tracer. Version 1.4. Available from: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer.
31. Rambaut A., Grassly N.C. 1997. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic frees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235-238.
32. Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P. 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 19:1572-1574.
33. Ruano-Rubio V., Fares M.A. 2007. Artifactual phylogenies caused by correlated distribution of substitution rates among sites and lineages: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Syst. Biol. 56:68-82.
34. Schwarz G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6: 461-464.
35. Shavit L., Penny D., Hendy M.D., Holland B.R. 2007. The problem of rooting rapid radiations. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:2400-2411.
36. Shavit Grievink L., Penny D., Hendy M.D., Holland B.R. 2008. LineageSpecificSeqgen: generating sequence data with lineage-specific variation in the proportion of variable sites. BMC Evol. Biol. 8:317.
37. Smedmark J.E.E., Swenson U., Anderberg A.A. 2006. Accounting for variation of substitution rates through time in Bayesian phylogeny reconstruction of Sapotoideae (Sapotaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39:706-721.
38. Spencer M., Susko E., Roger A.J. 2005. Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1161-1164.
39. Steel M. 2005. Should phylogenetic models be trying to 'fit an elephant'? Trends Genet. 21:307-309.
40. Strugnell J., Norman M., Jackson J., Drummond A.J., Cooper A. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of coleoid cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) using a multigene approach; the effect of data partitioning on resolving phylogenies in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37:426-441.
41. Sullivan J., Joyce P. 2005. Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36:445-466.
42. Thornton J.W., Kolaczkowski B. 2005. No magic pill for phylogenetic error. Trends Genet. 21:310-311.
43. Tuffley C., Steel M. 1998. Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Math. Biosci. 147:63-91.