Comparative performance of supertree algorithms in large data sets using the soapberry family (Sapindaceae) as a case study

Systematic Biology

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 32-44

  Buerki, Sven ^a,b   Forest, Félix ^c   Salamin, Nicolas ^d,e   Alvarez, Nadir ^b,d  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEUCHÂTEL   (Switzerland)

^c JODRELL LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^e SWISS INSTITUTE OF BIOINFORMATICS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Heuristic search; matrix representation with parsimony; MinCut; MinFlip; Sapindaceae; supertree

Indexed keywords

PLANT DNA;

ALGORITHM; ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; SAPINDACEAE;

ALGORITHMS; ANGIOSPERMS; CLASSIFICATION; DNA, PLANT; PHYLOGENY; SAPINDACEAE;

MAGNOLIOPHYTA; SAPINDACEAE;

EID: 79952154345     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syq057     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Baker W. J., Savolainen V., Asmussen-Lange C. B., Chase M. W., Dransfield J., Forest F., Harley M. M., Uhl N. W., Wilkinson M. 2009. Complete generic level phylogenetic analyses of palms (Arecaceae) with comparisons of supertree and supermatrix approaches. Syst. Biol. 58:240-256.
2. 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.
3. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol. 52:839-848. (Pubitemid 38106049)
4. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P. 2004. New uses for old phylogenies: an introduction to the volume. In: Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., editor. Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic. p. 3-14.
5. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Bryant H. N. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508. (Pubitemid 128451088)
6. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Cardillo M., Jones K. E., MacPhee R. D. E., Beck R. M. D., Grenyer R., Price S. A., Vos R. A., Gittleman J. L., Purvis A. 2007. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature. 446:507-512. (Pubitemid 46514725)
7. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Gittleman J. L., Purvis A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-175. (Pubitemid 29238032)
8. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Gittleman J. L., Steel M. A. 2002. The (Super) tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:265-289.
9. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Jones K. E., Price S. A., Grenyer R., Cardillo M., Habib M., Purvis A., Gittleman J. L. 2003. Supertrees are a necessary not-so-evil: a comment on Gatesy et al. Syst. Biol. 52:724-729. (Pubitemid 37365053)
10. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Sanderson M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-579.
11. Bryant D., Steel M. 1995. Extension operations on sets of leaf-labeled trees. Adv. Appl. Math. 16:425-453.
12. Buerki S., Forest F., Acevedo-Rodríguez P., Callmander M. W., Nylander J. A. A., Harrington M., Sanmartín I., Küpfer P., Alvarez N. 2009. Plastid and nuclear DNA markers reveal intricate relationships at subfamilial and tribal levels in the soapberry family (Sapindaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 51:238-258.
13. Buerki S., Phillipson P. B., Lowry P. P. 2nd, Callmander M. W. 2010. Molecular phylogenetics and morphological evidence support recognition of Gereaua, a new endemic genus of Sapindaceae from Madagascar. Syst. Bot. 35:172-180.
14. Burleigh J. G., Driskell A. C., Sanderson M. J. 2006. Supertrees bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome-scale data sets. Syst. Biol. 55:426-440.
15. Cardillo M., Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Boakes E., Purvis A. 2004. A species-level phylogenetic supertree of marsupials. J. Zool. 264:11-31. (Pubitemid 39246912)
16. Chen D., Diao L., Eulenstein O., Fernandez-Baca D., Sanderson M. J. 2003. Flipping: a supertree construction method. In: Janowitz M., Lapointe F.-J., McMorris F. R., Mirkin B., Roberts F. S., editors. Bioconsensus. Providence (RI): American Mathematical Society (DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science). p. 135-160.
17. Chen D., Eulenstein O., Fernandez-Baca D. 2004. Rainbow: a toolbox for phylogenetic supertree construction and analysis. Bioinformatics. 20:2872-2873. (Pubitemid 39530186)
18. Christin P. A., Besnard G., Samaritani E., Duvall M. R., Hodkinson T. R., Savolainen V., Salamin N. 2008. Oligocene CO2 decline promoted C4 photosynthesis in grasses. Curr. Biol. 18:37-43.
19. Colless D. H. 1981. Predictivity and stability in classifications: some comments on recent studies. Syst. Biol. 30:325-331.
20. Cotton J. A., Page R. D. M. 2003. Gene tree parsimony vs. uninode coding for phylogenetic reconstruction from duplicate genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 29:298-308. (Pubitemid 38370218)
21. Cotton J. A., Page R. D. M. 2004. Tangled trees from multiple markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., editor. Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic. p. 107-126.
22. Cotton J. A., Wilkinson M. 2007. Majority-rule supertrees. Syst. Biol. 56:445-452.
23. Creevey C. J., Fitzpatrick D. A., Philip G. K., Kinsella R. J., O'Connell M. J., Pentony M. M., Travers S. A., Wilkinson M., McInerney J. O. 2004. Does a tree-like phylogeny only exist at the tips in the prokaryotes? Proc. R. Soc. B. 271:2552-2558.
24. Creevey C. J., McInerney J. O. 2005. Clann: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics. 21:390-392. (Pubitemid 40246612)
25. Criscuolo A., Berry V., Douzery E. J. P., Gascuel O. 2006. SDM: a fast distance-based approach for (super) tree building in phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 55:740-755.
26. Degnan J. H., De Giorgio M., Bryant D., Rosenberg N. A. 2009. Properties of consensus methods for inferring species trees from gene trees. Syst. Biol. 58:35-54.
27. Degnan J. H., Rosenberg N. A. 2006. Discordance of species trees with their most likely gene trees. PLoS Genet. 2:762-768. (Pubitemid 43794324)
28. Degnan J. H., Rosenberg N. A. 2009. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference, and the multispecies coalescent. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:332-340.
29. Edwards K. J., Gadek P. A. 2001. Evolution and biogeography of Alectryon (Sapindaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 20:14-26. (Pubitemid 32656899)
30. Estabrook G. F. 1992. Evaluating undirected positional congruence of individual taxa between two estimates of the phylogenetic tree for a group of taxa. Syst. Biol. 41:172-177.
31. Estabrook G. F., McMorris F. R., Meacham C. A. 1985. Comparison of undirected phylogenetic trees based on subtrees of four evolutionary units. Syst. Zool. 34:193-200.
32. Eulenstein O., Chen D. H., Burleigh J. G., Fernandez-Baca D., Sanderson M. J. 2004. Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53:299-308. (Pubitemid 38611184)
33. Felsenstein J. 1993. PHYLIP: phylogenetic inference package. Version 3.5c. Seattle (WA): University of Washington.
34. Forest F., Grenyer R., Rouget M., Davies T. J., Cowling R. M., Balmford A., Faith D. P., Manning J. C., Procheş Ş., van der Bank M., Reeves G., Hedderson T. A. J., Savolainen V. 2007. Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature. 445:757-760. (Pubitemid 46279719)
35. Gatesy J., Matthee C., Desalle R., Hayashi C. 2002. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 51:652-664. (Pubitemid 35180694)
36. Goloboff P. A., Catalano S. A., Mirande J. M., Szumik C. A., Arias J. S., Källersjö M., Farris J. S. 2009. Phylogenetic analysis of 73 060 taxa corroborates major eukaryotic groups. Cladistics. 25:211-230.
37. Gordon A. D. 1986. Consensus Supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:31-39.
38. Harrington M. G., Edwards K. J., Johnson S. A., Chase M. W., Gadek P. A. 2005. Phylogenetic inference in Sapindaceae sensu lato using plastid matK and rbcL DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 30:366-382. (Pubitemid 40850172)
39. Jones K. E., Purvis A., MacLarnon A., Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Simmons N. B. 2002. A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Biol. Rev. 77:223-259. (Pubitemid 34567117)
40. Kluge A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
41. Kubatko L. S., Degnan J. H. 2007. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst. Biol. 56:17-24.
42. Landry P. A., Lapointe F. J., Kirsch J. A. W. 1996. Estimating phylogenies from lacunose distance matrices: Additive is superior to ultrametric estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:818-823. (Pubitemid 26240086)
43. Lapointe F. J., Cucumel G. 1997. The average consensus procedure: combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst. Biol. 46:306-312. (Pubitemid 127092068)
44. Lapointe F. J., Kirsch J. A. W., Hutcheon J. M. 1999. Total evidence, consensus, and bat phylogeny: a distance-based approach. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 11:55-66. (Pubitemid 129499252)
45. Lapointe F.-J., Levasseur C. 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. In: Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., editor. Phylogenetic supertrees: combining information to reveal the Tree of Life. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic. p. 87-105.
46. Magallón S., Castillo A. 2009. Angiosperm diversification through time. Am. J. Bot. 96:349-365.
47. Makarenkov V. 2001. T-Rex: reconstructing and visualizing phylogenetic trees and reticulation networks. Bioinformatics. 17:664-668. (Pubitemid 32707593)
48. Makarenkov V., Lapointe F. J. 2004. A weighted least-squares approach for inferring phylogenies from incomplete distance matrices. Bioinformatics. 20:2113-2121. (Pubitemid 39236564)
49. Marjoram P., Tavaré S. 2006. Modern computational approaches for analysing molecular genetic variation data. Nat. Genet. 7:759-770. (Pubitemid 44413220)
50. Muellner A. N., Vassiliades D. D., Renner S. S. 2007. Placing Biebersteiniaceae, a herbaceous clade of Sapindales, in a temporal and geographic context. Plant Syst. Evol. 266:233-252.
51. Muller J., Leenhouts P. W. 1976. A general survey of pollen types in Sapindaceae in relation to taxonomy. In: Ferguson I. K., Muller J., editors. The evolutionary significance of the exine. London: Academic Press. p. 407-445.
52. Novacek M. J. 2001. Mammalian phylogeny: genes and supertrees. Curr. Biol. 11: R573-R575. (Pubitemid 32675757)
53. Page R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2452:537-551.
54. Philip G. K., Creevey C. J., McInerney J. O. 2005. The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:1175-1184. (Pubitemid 40577755)
55. Price S. A., Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Gittleman J. L. 2005. A complete phylogeny of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla). Biol. Rev. 80:445-473. (Pubitemid 41081467)
56. Purvis A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 348:405-421.
57. Purvis A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
58. Radlkofer L. 1933. Sapindaceae. In: Engler A., editor. Das Pflanzenreich IV (Heft 98a-h). Leipzig (Germany): Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. p. 1-1539.
59. Ragan M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
60. Robinson D. F., Foulds L. R. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147. (Pubitemid 11129084)
61. Rodrigo A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon. 42:631-636.
62. Rodrigo A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon. 45:267-274.
63. Ronquist F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45:247-253.
64. Salamin N., Hodkinson T. R., Savolainen V. 2002. Building supertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Syst. Biol. 51:136-150. (Pubitemid 35169411)
65. Sanderson M. J., Purvis A., Henze C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-109. (Pubitemid 28136253)
66. Savolainen V., Fay M. F., Albach D. C., Backlund A., van der Bank M., Cameron K. M., Johnson S. A., Lledó M. D., Pintaud J.-C., Powell M., Sheahan M. C., Soltis D. E., Soltis P. S., Weston P., Whitten W. M., Wurdack K. J., Chase M. W. 2000. Phylogeny of the eudicots: a newly complete familial analysis based on rbcL gene sequences. Kew Bull. 55:257-309.
67. Semple C., Steel M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
68. Slowinski J. B., Page R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48:814-825. (Pubitemid 129490565)
69. Smith A. S., Beaulieu J. M., Donoghue M. J. 2009. Mega-phylogeny approach for compatarive biology: an alternative to supertree and supermatrix approaches. BMC Evol. Biol. 9:37.
70. Springer M. S., de Jong W. W. 2001. Phylogenetics-which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science. 291:1709-1711.
71. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics. 22:2688-2690. (Pubitemid 44642609)
72. Stamatakis A., Hoover P., Rougemont J. 2008. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web-servers. Syst. Biol. 57:758-771.
73. Stoner C. J., Bininda-Emonds O. R. P., Caro T. M. 2003. The adaptive significance of coloration in lagomorphs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 79:309-328. (Pubitemid 36720215)
74. *and other methods). Version 4. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
75. Thorne R. F. 2000. The classification and geography of the flowering plants: dicotyledons of the class Angiospermae. Bot. Rev. 66:441-647.
76. Umadevi I., Daniel M. 1991. Chemosystematics of the Sapindaceae. Feddes Repert. 102:607-612.
77. Wilkinson M., Cotton J. A., Creevey C., Eulenstein O., Harris S. R., Lapointe F. J., Levasseur C., McInerney J. O., Pisani D., Thorley J. L. 2005. The shape of supertrees to come: tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 54:419-431. (Pubitemid 41040441)
78. Wilkinson M., Cotton J. A., Lapointe F. J., Pisani D. 2007. Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting. Syst. Biol. 56:330-337.
79. Wilkinson M., Pisani D., Cotton J. A., Corfe I. 2005. Measuring support and finding unsupported relationships in supertrees. Syst. Biol. 54:823-831. (Pubitemid 43142298)
80. Wilkinson M., Thorley J. L., Littlewood D. T. J., Bray R. A. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelrmnthes? In: Littlewood D. T. J., Bray R. A., editors. Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. London: Taylor and Francis. p. 292-301.
81. Wojciechowski F., Sanderson M. J., Steele P., Liston A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the "temperate herbaceous tribes" of papilionoid legumes: a supertree approach. In: Herendeen P., Bruneau A., editors. Advances in legume systematics. Kew (UK): Royal Botanic Gardens. p. 277-298.