A test for heterotachy using multiple pairs of sequences

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1661-1673

  Wu, Jihua ^a   Susko, Edward ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

covarionmodel; distance method; heterogeneity; heterotachy; hypothesis test; within gene heterotachy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EUKARYOTE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HETEROTACHY TEST; METAZOON; NONHUMAN; SIMULATION;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC VARIATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 79955432017     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msq346     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ané C, Burleigh JG, McMahon MM, Sanderson MJ. 2005. Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: a new statistical test. Mol Biol Evol. 22(4):914-924. (Pubitemid 40471405)
2. Baele G, Raes J, Peer Y, Vansteelandt S. 2006. An improved statistical method for detecting heterotachy in nucleotide sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 23:1397-1405. (Pubitemid 43992340)
3. Brinkmann H, Giezen M, Zhou Y, Raucourt GP, Philippe H. 2005. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 54(5):743-757. (Pubitemid 43142294)
4. Dopazo H, Dopazo J. 2005. Genome-scale evidence of the nematode-arthropod clade. Genome Biol. 6:R41.
5. Fitch WM, Markowitz E. 1970. An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution. Biochem Genet. 4:579-593.
6. Fletcher W, Yang Z. 2009. INDELible: a flexible simulator of biological sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 26(8):1879-1888.
7. Gadagkar SR, Kumar S. 2005. Maximum likelihood outperforms maximum parsimony even when evolutionary rates are heterotachous. Mol Biol Evol. 22:2139-2141. (Pubitemid 41437794)
8. Galtier N. 2001. Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol Biol Evol. 18:866-873. (Pubitemid 32372956)
9. Gruenheit N, Lockhart PJ, 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. (Pubitemid 351882028)
10. Huelsenbeck JP. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol Biol Evol. 19:698-707. (Pubitemid 34521301)
11. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-984. (Pubitemid 39434418)
12. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2008. A mixed branch length model of heterotachy improves phylogenetic accuracy. Mol Biol Evol. 25:1054-1066.
13. Lockhart PJ, Novis P, Milligan BG, Riden J, Rambaut A, Larkumk T. 2005. Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eu-bacteria. Mol Biol Evol. 23:40-45.
14. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA, Barbrook AC, Huson DH, Charleston MA, Howe CJ. 1998. A covariotide model explains apparent phyloge-netic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. Mol Biol Evol. 15:1183-1188. (Pubitemid 28394953)
15. Lopez P, Casane D, Philippe H. 2002. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 19(1):1-7. (Pubitemid 34008041)
16. Lopez P, Forterre P, Philippe H. 1999. The root of the tree of life in light of the covarion model. J Mol Evol. 49:496-508. (Pubitemid 29463392)
17. Misof B, Anderson CL, Buckley TR, Erpenbeck D, Rickert A, Misof K. 2002. An empirical analysis of mt 16S rRNA covarion-like evolution in insects: site-specific rate variation is clustered and frequently detected. J Mol Evol. 55:460-469.
18. Nishihara H, Okada N, Hasegawa M. 2007. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8(9): R199.
19. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdyso-zoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1246-1253. (Pubitemid 40577762)
20. Philippe H, Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Delsuc F. 2005. Het-erotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. Evol Biol. 5(1):50.
21. Posada D, Crandall KA. 2001. A comparison of different strategies for selecting models of DNA substitution. Syst Biol. 50:580-601.
22. Rambaut A, Grassly NC. 1997. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput Appl Biosci. 13:235-238. (Pubitemid 27249927)
23. Rasmussen MD, Kellis M. 2007. Accurate gene-tree reconstruction by learning gene-and species-specific substitution rates across multiple complete genomes. Genome Res. 17:1932-1942. (Pubitemid 351369026)
24. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Becker B, Melkonian M. 2007. Phylogenetic analyses of nuclear, mito-chondrial, and plastid multigene data sets support the placement of mesostigma in the streptophyta. Mol Biol Evol. 24(3):723-731. (Pubitemid 46355796)
25. Saitou N, Nei M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing evolutionary trees. Mol Biol Evol. 4: 406-425.
26. Self SG, Liang KY. 1987. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J Amer Statist Assoc. 82:605-610.
27. Shoemaker JS, Fitch WM. 1989. Evidence from nuclear sequences that invariable sites should be considered when sequence divergence is calculated. Mol Biol Evol. 6:270-289.
28. Som A, Fuellen G. 2009. The effect of heterotachy in multigene analysis using the neighbor joining method. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 52(3):846-851.
29. Spencer M, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2005. Likelihood, parsimony and heterogeneous evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1161-1164.
30. Susko E, Field C, Blouin C, Roger AJ. 2003. Estimation of rates-across-sites distributions in phylogenetic substitution models. Syst Biol. 52:594-603. (Pubitemid 37365042)
31. Susko E, InagakiY, FieldC, Holder ME, Roger AJ. 2002. Testing for differences in rates-across-sites distributions in phylogenetic subtrees. Mol Biol Evol. 19(9):1514-1523. (Pubitemid 36752776)
32. Susko E, Roger AJ. 2007. On reduced amino acid alphabets for phylo-genetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 24:2139-2150.
33. Tuffley C, Steel MA. 1998. Modelling the covarion hypothesis of nu-cleotide substitution. Math Biosci. 147:63-91. (Pubitemid 128761931)
34. Wang H, Spencer M, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2007. Testing for covarion-like evolution in protein sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 24:294-305. (Pubitemid 46026302)
35. Wu J. 2010. Distance method adjustments and a test for general het-erotachy in phylogenetic estimation [PhD thesis]. [Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada)]: Dalhousie University.
36. Wu J, Susko E. 2009. General heterotachy and distance method adjustments. Mol Biol Evol. 26:2689-2697.
37. Wu J, Susko E. 2010. Rate-variation need not defeat phylogenetic inference through pairwise sequence comparisons. J Theor Biol. 263(4):587-589.
38. Wu J, Susko E, Roger AJ. 2007. An independent heterotachy model and its implications for phylogeny and divergence time estimation. Mol Phyl Evol. 46:801-806.
39. Yang Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol Biol Evol. 10:1396-1401. (Pubitemid 23352619)
40. Yang Z. 1994. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol. 39:306-314. (Pubitemid 24283346)
41. Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Philippe H. 2010. A Dirichlet process covarion mixture model and its assessments using posterior predictive discrepancy tests. Mol Biol Evol. 27:371-384.