Analysis of long branch extraction and long branch shortening

BMC Genomics

Volumn 11, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2010, Pages

  O'Connor, Timothy ^a   Sundberg, Kenneth ^b   Carroll, Hyrum ^b   Clement, Mark ^b   Snell, Quinn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b 3361 TMCB   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; LONG BRANCH ATTRACTION; LONG BRANCH EXTRACTION; LONG BRANCH SHORTENING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYLOGENY; PREDICTION; TAXON; BIOLOGY; GENOMICS; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GENOMICS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 78149313513     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712164     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-S2-S14     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Siddall M, Whiting M. Long-Branch Abstractions. Cladistics 1999, 15:9-24.
2. Camin J, Sokal R. A Method for Deducing Branching Sequences in Phylogeny. Evolution 1965, 19(3):311-326.
3. Goloboff P. Parsimony, likelihood, and simplicity. Cladistics 2003, 19(2):91-103.
4. Felsenstein J. Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods Will be Positively Misleading. Systematic Zoology 1978, 27(4):401-410.
5. Bergsten J. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 2005, 21(2):163-193.
6. Huelsenbeck J, Hillis D. Success of Phylogenetic Methods in the Four-Taxon Case. Systematic Biology 1993, 42(3):247-264.
7. Huelsenbeck J. Performance of Phylogenetic Methods in Simulation. Systematic Biology 1995, 44:17-48.
8. Hillis D, Huelsenbeck J, Cunningham C. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 1994, 264(5159):671. 10.1126/science.8171318, 8171318.
9. Pol D, Siddall M. Biases in Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony: A Simulation Approach to a 10-Taxon Case. Cladistics 2001, 17(3):266-281.
10. Swofford D, Waddell P, Huelsenbeck J, Foster P, Lewis P, Rogers J. Bias in Phylogenetic Estimation and Its Relevance to the Choice between Parsimony and Likelihood Methods. Systematic Biology 2001, 50(4):525-539. 10.1080/106351501750435086, 12116651.
11. Siddall M. Success of Parsimony in the Four-Taxon Case: Long-Branch Repulsion by Likelihood in the Farris Zone. Cladistics 1998, 14(3):209-220.
12. Cartwright R. DNA assembly with gaps (Dawg): simulating sequence evolution. Bioinformatics 2005, 21(3):31-38. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1200, 15333453.
13. Tavare S. Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect. Math. Life Sci 1986, 17:57-86.
14. Lanave C, Preparata G, Sacone C, Serio G. A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. Journal of Molecular Evolution 1984, 20:86-93. 10.1007/BF02101990, 6429346.
15. Rodriguez F, Oliver J, Marin A, Medina J. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol 1990, 142(4):485-501. 10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80104-3, 2338834.
16. Swofford DL. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). Version 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates 2003,
17. Graybeal A. Is It Better to Add Taxa or Characters to a Difficult Phylogenetic Problem?. Systematic Biology 1998, 47:9-17. 10.1080/106351598260996, 12064243.
18. Hillis D. Taxonomic Sampling, Phylogenetic Accuracy, and Investigator Bias. Systematic Biology 1998, 47:3-8. 10.1080/106351598260987, 12064238.