SUPERTRIPLETS: A triplet-based supertree approach to phylogenomics

Bioinformatics

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2010, Pages

  Ranwez, Vincent ^a,b   Criscuolo, Alexis ^c   Douzery, Emmanuel J P ^a,b  

^a UNIV MONTPELLIER   (France)

^b INSTITUT DES SCIENCES DE L EVOLUTION   (France)

^c INSTITUT PASTEUR   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MAMMALIA;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 77954209722     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq196     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Adams,E.N. (1972) Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool., 21, 390-397.
2. Bansal,M.S. et al. (2008) Comparing and aggregating partially resolved trees. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 4957, 72-83.
3. Baum,B.R. (1992) Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon, 41, 3-10.
4. Beck,R.M.D. et al. (2006) A higher-level MRP supertree of placental mammals. BMC Evol. Biol., 6, 93.
5. Bininda-Emonds,O.R.P. (2003) Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol., 52, 839-848.
6. Bininda-Emonds,O.R.P. et al. (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature, 446, 507-512.
7. Blanga-Kanfi,S. et al. (2009) Rodent phylogeny revised: analysis of six nuclear genes from all major rodent clades. BMC Evol. Biol., 9,71.
8. Bordewich,M. and Semple,C. (2004) On the computational complexity of the rooted subtree prune and regraft distance. Ann. Combinat., 8, 409-423.
9. Bourque,M. (1978) Arbres de Steiner et réseaux dont varie l'emplagement de certains sommets. PhD Thesis, University of Montréal, Montréal, Canada. (In French).
10. Bryant,D. (1997) Building trees, hunting for trees and comparing trees. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.
11. Bryant,D. (2003)Aclassification of consensus methods for phylogenies. In Janowitz,M. et al. (eds), Bioconsensus. DIMACS, AMS, Providence, RI, pp. 163-184.
12. Burleigh,J.G. et al. (2006) Supertree bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome scale data. Syst. Biol., 55, 426-440.
13. Churakov,G. et al. (2009) Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals. Genome Res., 19, 868-875.
14. Cotton,J.A. and Wilkinson,M. (2007) Majority-rule supertrees. Syst. Biol., 56, 445-452.
15. Cotton,J.A. et al. (2006) Discriminating supported and unsupported relationships in supertrees using triplets. Syst. Biol., 55, 345-350.
16. Creevey,C.J. and McInerney,J.O. (2005) CLANN: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics, 21, 390-392.
17. Criscuolo,A. et al. (2006) SDM: a fast distance-based approach for (super)tree building in phylogenomics. Syst. Biol., 55, 740-755.
18. Critchlow,D.E. et al. (1996) The triples distance for rooted bifurcating phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol., 45, 323-334.
19. Dixon,W.J. and Mood,A.M. (1946) The statistical sign test. J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 41, 557-566.
20. Dobson,A.J. (1975) Comparing the shapes of trees. In Street,A.P. and Wallis,W.D. (eds) Combinatorial Mathematics III, LNCS, vol. 452. Springer, New York, pp. 95-100.
21. Douady,C.J. et al. (2003) Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol. Biol. Evol., 20, 248-254.
22. Doyle,J.J. (1992) Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot., 17, 144-163.
23. Eulenstein,O. et al. (2004) Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol., 53, 299-308.
24. Farris,J.S. et al. (1970) A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Syst. Zool., 19, 172-191.
25. Fawcett,T. (2004) ROC graphs: notes and practical considerations for researchers. Technical Report HPL-2003-4. HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA.
26. Fawcett,T. (2005) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn. Lett., 27, 86-874.
27. Goloboff,P.A. et al. (2008) TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 24, 774-786.
28. Gordon,A.D. (1986) Consensus supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif., 3, 335-348.
29. Grunewald,S. et al. (2007) Closure operations in phylogenetics. Math. Biosci., 208, 521-537.
30. Guindon,S. and Gascuel,O. (2003) A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol., 52, 696-704.
31. Harding,E. (1971) The probabilities of rooted tree-shapes generated by random bifurcation. Adv. Appl. Probab., 3, 44-77.
32. Hickey,G. et al. (2008) SPR distance computation of unrooted trees. Evol. Bioinform. Online, 4, 17-27.
33. Janecka,J.E. et al. (2007) Molecular and genomic data identify the closest living relative of primates. Science, 318, 792-794.
34. Jeffroy,O. et al. (2006) Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends Genet., 22, 225-231.
35. Kimura,M. (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol., 2, 87-90.
36. Lin,H.T. et al. (2009) Triplet supertree heuristics for the tree of life. BMC Bioinformatics, 10(Suppl. 1), S8.
37. Maddison,W.P. (1989) Reconstructing character evolution on polytomous cladograms. Cladistics, 5, 365-377.
38. Moore,B.R. et al. (2006) Increasing data transparency and estimating phylogenetic uncertainty in supertrees: approaches using nonparametric bootstrapping. Syst. Biol., 55, 662-676.
39. Moran,S. et al. (2005) Using semi-definite programming to enhance supertree resolvability. In Istrail,S. et al. (eds) Algorithms in Bioinformatics, Proceedings of WABI 2005, Vol. 3692 of LNCS, Springer, Berlin, ALLEMAGNE, pp. 89-103.
40. Mosses,C. (2005) Triplet supertrees. PhD Thesis, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
41. Nelson,G. and Ladiges,P.Y. (1994) Three-item consensus: empirical test of fractional weighting. In Scotland,R.W. et al. (eds) Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction. Clarendon, Oxford, pp. 193-209.
42. Page,R.D.M. (2002) Modified MinCut supertrees. In Guigó,R. and Gusfield,D. (eds) Vol. 2452 of LNCS, Springer, London, UK, pp. 537-551.
43. Phillips,C. and Warnow,T.J. (1996) The asymmetric median tree-a new model for building consensus trees. Discr. Appl. Math., 71, 311-355.
44. Piaggio-Talice,R. et al. (2004) Quartet supertrees. In Bininda-Emonds,O.R.P. (ed) Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 173-191.
45. Prasad,A.B. et al. (2008) Confirming the phylogeny of mammals by use of large comparative sequence data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol., 25, 1795-1808.
46. Ragan,M.A. (1992) Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phyl. Evol., 1, 53-58.
47. Rambaut,A. and Grassly,N.C. (1997) Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci., 13, 235-238.
48. Ranwez,V. et al. (2007) OrthoMaM: a database of orthologous genomic markers for placental mammal phylogenetics. BMC Evol. Biol., 7,241.
49. Robinson,D.F. and Foulds,L.R. (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci., 53, 131-147.
50. Saitou,N. and Nei,M. (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol., 4, 406-425.
51. Sanderson,M.J. (2003) r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics, 19, 301-302.
52. Semple,C. and Steel,M. (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
53. Steel,M.A. and Penny,D. (1993) Distribution of tree comparison metrices - some new results. Syst. Biol., 42, 126-141.
54. Steel,M.A. and Rodrigo, A. (2008) Maximum likelihood supertree. Syst. Biol., 57, 243-250.
55. Swofford,D.L. et al. (1996) Phylogenetic inference. In Hillis, D.M. et al. (eds) Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Massachussets, pp. 407-514.
56. Thorley,J.L. (2000) Cladistic information, leaf stability and supertree construction. PhD Thesis. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
57. Wilkinson,M. (1994)Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics, 10, 221-223.
58. Wilkinson,M. et al. (2001) Towards a phylogenetic supertree for platyhelminthes? In Littlewood,D.T. and Bray,R.A. (eds) Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. Taylor and Francis, Chapman Hall, London, pp. 292-301.
59. Wilkinson,M. et al. (2004) The information content of trees and their matrix representations. Syst. Biol., 53, 989-1001.
60. Wilkinson,M. et al. (2005a) The shape of supertrees to come: tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol., 54, 419-431.
61. Wilkinson,M. et al. (2005b) Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst. Biol., 54, 823-831.
62. Wilkinson,M. et al. (2007) Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting. Syst. Biol., 56, 330-337.
63. Williams,D.M. (2004) Supertrees, components and three-item data. In Bininda-Emonds,O.R.P. (ed) Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 389-408.
64. Williams,D.M. and Humphries,C.J. (2003) Component coding, three-item coding, and consensus methods. Syst. Biol., 52, 255-259.
65. Yule,G.U. (1925) A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr J.C. Willis. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 213, 21-87.