The performance of the Congruence among Distance Matrices (CADM) test in phylogenetic analysis

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Campbell, Véronique ^a   Legendre, Pierre ^a   Lapointe, François Joseph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYLOGENY;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA SEQUENCE; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 79952321812     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712148     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-64     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM: Phylogenetic inference. In Molecular systematics. Second edition. Edited by: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc; 1996:407-514.
2. Lerat E, Daubin V, Moran NA: From gene trees to organismal phylogeny in prokaryotes: The case of the γ-proteobacteria. Plos Biol 2003, 1(1):101-109.
3. Rokas A, Williams BL, King N, Carroll SB: Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 2003, 425(6960):798-804. (Pubitemid 37355944)
4. Driskell AC, Ané C, Burleigh JG, McMahon MM, O'Meara BC, Sanderson MJ: Prospects for building the tree of life from large sequence databases. Science 2004, 306(5699):1172-1174. (Pubitemid 39488993)
5. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H: Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol 2005, 22(5):1246-1253. (Pubitemid 40577762)
6. Fitzpatrick DA, Logue ME, Stajich JE, Butler G: A fungal phylogeny based on 42 complete genomes derived from supertree and combined gene analysis. BMC Evol Biol 2006, 6:1-15.
7. Nishihara H, Okada N, Hasegawa M: Rooting the eutherian tree: The power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol 2007, 8(9):R199.
8. Wildman DE, Uddin M, Opazo JC, Liu G, Lefort V, Guindon S, Gascuel O, Grossman LI, Romero R, Goodman M: Genomics, biogeography, and the diversification of placental mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104(36):14395-14400. (Pubitemid 350003272)
9. Dunn CW, Hejnol A, Matus DQ, Pang K, Browne WE, Smith SA, Seaver E, Rouse GW, Obst M, Edgecombe GD Sørensen MV, Haddock SHD, Schmidt-Rhaesa A, Okusu A, Kristensen RM, Wheeler WC, Martindale MQ, Giribet G: Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 2008, 452(7188):745-749. (Pubitemid 351522763)
10. Zou XH, Zhang FM, Zhang JG, Zang LL, Tang L, Wang J, Sang T, Ge S: Analysis of 142 genes resolves the rapid diversification of the rice genus. Genome Biol 2008, 9(3):R49.
11. Kluge AG: A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst Zool 1989, 38(1):7-25.
12. Mickevich MF: Taxonomic congruence. Syst Zool 1978, 27:143-158.
13. de Queiroz A: For consensus (sometimes). Syst Biol 1993, 42(3):368-372.
14. Gatesy J, Baker RH, Hayashi C: Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: Supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Syst Biol 2004, 53(2):342-355.
15. Eernisse DJ, Kluge AG: Taxonomic congruence versus total evidence, and amniote phylogeny inferred from fossils, molecules, and morphology. Mol Biol Evol 1993, 10(6):1170-1195. (Pubitemid 23352604)
16. Kluge AG, Wolf AJ: Cladistics: What's in a word? Cladistics 1993, 9(2):183-199.
17. de Queiroz A, Gatesy J: The supermatrix approach to systematics. Trends Ecol Evol 2007, 22(1):34-41. (Pubitemid 44959174)
18. Swofford DL: When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In Phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences. Edited by: Miyamoto MM, Cracraft J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991:295-333.
19. Farris JS, Källersjö M, Kluge AG, Bult C: Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst Biol 1995, 44(4):570-572.
20. Miyamoto MM, Fitch WM: Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst Biol 1995, 44(1):64-76.
21. Huelsenbeck JP, Bull JJ, Cunningham CW: Combining data in phylogenetic analysis: Reply. Trends Ecol Evol 1996, 11(8):335-335.
22. Huelsenbeck JP, Bull JJ, Cunningham CW: Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 1996, 11(4):152-158. (Pubitemid 126403403)
23. Sanderson MJ, Purvis A, Henze C: Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol Evol 1998, 13(3):105-109. (Pubitemid 28136253)
24. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL, Steel MA: The (Super)tree of life: Procedures, problems, and prospects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2002, 33:265-289.
25. Bininda-Emonds ORP: The evolution of supertrees. Trends Ecol Evol 2004, 19(6):315-322.
26. Bininda-Emonds ORP: MRP supertree construction in the consensus setting. In Bioconsensus. Volume 61. Edited by: Janowitz M, Lapointe F-J, McMorris FR, Mirkin B, Roberts FS. Providence: American Mathematical Society; 2003:231-242.
27. Crandall KA, Buhay JE: Genomic databases and the tree of life. Science 2004, 306(5699):1144-1145. (Pubitemid 39488984)
28. de Queiroz A, Donoghue MJ, Kim J: Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1995, 26:657-681.
29. Wiens JJ: Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst Biol 1998, 47(4):568-581.
30. Bininda-Emonds ORP: Trees versus characters and the supertree/supermatrix "paradox". Syst Biol 2004, 53(2):356-359.
31. Gadagkar SR, Rosenberg MS, Kumar S: Inferring species phylogenies from multiple genes: Concatenated sequence tree versus consensus gene tree. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2005, 304B(1):64-74. (Pubitemid 40346325)
32. Philippe H, Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Lartillot N: Phylogenomics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 2005, 36:541-562. (Pubitemid 43068870)
33. Bull JJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW, Swofford DL, Waddell PJ: Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 1993, 42(3):384-397.
34. Rodrigo AG, Kelly-Borges M, Bergquist PR, Bergquist PL: A randomization test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. New Zeal J Bot 1993, 31(3):257-268.
35. Huelsenbeck JP, Bull JJ: A likelihood ratio test to detect conflicting phylogenetic signal. Syst Biol 1996, 45(1):92-98.
36. Cunningham CW: Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Mol Biol Evol 1997, 14(7):733-740.
37. Wendel JF, Doyle JJ: Phylogenetic incongruence: Window into genome history and molecular evolution. In Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing. Edited by: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 1998:265-296.
38. Planet PJ: Tree disagreement: Measuring and testing incongruence in phylogenies. J Biomed Inform 2006, 39(1):86-102.
39. Farris JS, Källersjö M, Kluge AG, Bult C: Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 1994, 10(3):315-319.
40. Barker FK, Lutzoni FM: The utility of the incongruence length difference test. Syst Biol 2002, 51(4):625-637. (Pubitemid 35180691)
41. Darlu P, Lecointre G: When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol Biol Evol 2002, 19(4):432-437.
42. Stewart CB, Schilling JW, Wilson AC: Adaptive evolution in the stomach lysozymes of foregut fermenters. Nature 1987, 330(6146):401-404.
43. Luo CC, Li WH, Chan L: Structure and expression of dog apolipoprotein A-I, E, C-I mRNAs: Implications for the evolution and functional constraints of apolipoprotein structure. J Lipid Res 1989, 30(11):1735-1746.
44. Wolfe KH, Sharp PM, Li WH: Mutation rates differ among regions of the mammalian genome. Nature 1989, 337(6204):283-285. (Pubitemid 19030568)
45. Springer MS, de Jong WW: Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 2001, 291(5509):1709-1711.
46. Felsenstein J: Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool 1978, 27(4):401-410.
47. Hendy MD, Penny D: A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst Zool 1989, 38(4):297-309.
48. Woolley SM, Posada D, Crandall KA: A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(4):e1913.
49. Johnson LA, Soltis DE: Assessing congruence: Empirical examples from molecular data. In Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing. Edited by: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 1998:297-347.
50. Legendre P, Lapointe F-J: Assessing congruence among distance matrices: Single-malt Scotch whiskies revisited. Aust NZ J Stat 2004, 46(4):615-629. (Pubitemid 40097478)
51. Lapointe F-J, Legendre P: A statistical framework to test the consensus among additive trees (cladograms). Syst Biol 1992, 41(2):158-171.
52. Kendall MG, Babington Smith B: The problem of m rankings. Annals of Math Stat 1939, 10:275-287.
53. Legendre P: Coefficient of concordance. In Encyclopedia of Research Design. Edited by: Salkind NJ. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2010.
54. Huson DH, Bryant D: Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol 2006, 23(2):254-267. (Pubitemid 43100040)
55. Holland BR, Benthin S, Lockhart PJ, Moulton V, Huber KT: Using supernetworks to distinguish hybridization from lineage-sorting. BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:202.
56. Campbell V, Legendre P, Lapointe F-J: Assessing congruence among ultrametric distance matrices. J Classif 2009, 26(1):103-117.
57. Legendre P, Lapointe F-J: Congruence entre matrices de distance. Comptes-rendus des 12ièmes rencontres de la Société Francophone de Classification: Montréal Université du Québec; 2005, 178-181.
58. Rokas A, Chatzimanolis S: From gene-scale to genome-scale phylogenetics: The data flood in, but the challenges remain. In Methods in Molecular Biology: Phylogenomics. Edited by: Murphy WJ. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc; 2008.
59. Siegel S, Castellan NJJ: Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill;, second 1988.
60. Dolphin K, Belshaw R, Orme CDL, Quicke DLJ: Noise and incongruence: Interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2000, 17(3):401-406. (Pubitemid 32065244)
61. Quicke DLJ, Jones OR, Epstein DR: Correcting the problem of false incongruence due to noise imbalance in the incongruence length difference (ILD) test. Syst Biol 2007, 56(3):496-503.
62. Brochier C, Forterre P, Gribaldo S: An emerging phylogenetic core of Archaea: Phylogenies of transcription and translation machineries converge following addition of new genome sequences. BMC Evol Biol 2005, 5:36.
63. Bapteste E, Susko E, Leigh J, MacLeod D, Charlebois RL, Doolittle WF: Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking? BMC Evol Biol 2005, 5:33.
64. Susko E, Leigh J, Doolittle WF, Bapteste E: Visualizing and assessing phylogenetic congruence of core gene sets: A case study of the gamma-proteobacteria. Mol Biol Evol 2006, 23(5):1119-1030.
65. Suchard MA: Stochastic models for horizontal gene transfer: Taking a random walk through tree space. Genetics 2005, 170(1):419-431.
66. Ané C, Larget B, Baum DA, Smith SD, Rokas A: Bayesian estimation of concordance among gene trees. Mol Biol Evol 2007, 24(2):412-426. (Pubitemid 46204374)
67. Leigh JW, Susko E, Baumgartner M, Roger AJ: Testing congruence in phylogenomic analysis. Syst Biol 2008, 57(1):104-115.
68. Sullivan J, Swofford DL: 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 2001, 50(5):723-729.
69. Ripplinger J, Sullivan J: Does choice in model selection affect maximum likelihood analysis? Syst Biol 2008, 57(1):76-85.
70. Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;, Second 1988.
71. Lecointre G, Deleporte P: Total evidence requires exclusion of phylogenetically misleading data. Zool Scripta 2005, 34(1):101-117. (Pubitemid 40172130)
72. Roy BA: Patterns of association between crucifers and their flower-mimic pathogens: Host-jumps are more common than coevolution or cospeciation. Evolution 2001, 55(1):41-53.
73. Jackson AP: A reconciliation analysis of host switching in plant-fungal symbioses. Evolution 2004, 58:1909-1923.
74. Réfrégier G, Le Gac M, Jabbour F, Widmer A, Shykoff JA, Yockteng R, Hood ME, Giraud T: Cophylogeny of the anther smut fungi and their caryophyllaceous hosts: Prevalence of host shifts and importance of delimiting parasite species for inferring cospeciation. BMC Evol Biol 2008, 8:100.68.
75. Holland BR, Conner G, Huber K, Moulton V: Imputing supertrees and supernetworks from quartets. Syst Biol 2007, 56(1):57-67.
76. Ihaka R, Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 1996, 5:299-314.69.
77. R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna; 2009.
78. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K: APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004, 20(2):289-290. (Pubitemid 38195693)
79. Paradis E: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution with R. New York: Springer; 2006.
80. Edgington ES: Randomization tests. New York: Marcel Dekker;, 3 1995.
81. Saitou N, Nei M: The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987, 4(4):406-425.
82. Swofford DL: PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and other methods. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc; 1998.
83. Rambaut A, Grassly NC: Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic frees. Comput Appl Biosci 1997, 13(3):235-238. (Pubitemid 27249927)
84. Lanave C, Preparata G, Saccone C, Serio G: A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J Mol Evol 1984, 20(1):86-93. (Pubitemid 14116237)
85. Tavaré S: Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lec Math Life Sci 1986, 17:57-86.
86. Rodriguez F, Oliver JL, Marin A, Medina JR: The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol 1990, 142(4):485-501. (Pubitemid 20108270)
87. Yang ZH: Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol Biol Evol 1993, 10(6):1396-1401.
88. Zwickl DJ, Hillis DM: Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol 2002, 51(4):588-598. (Pubitemid 35180690)
89. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M: MEGA: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis. Version 1.01 University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University; 1993.