Fast and accurate phylogenetic reconstruction from high-resolution whole-genome data and a novel robustness estimator

Journal of Computational Biology

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1131-1139

  Lin, Y ^a   Rajan, V ^a   Moret, B M E ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Algorithms; bootstrapping; combinatorial optimization; computational molecular biology; genomic rearrangements; phylogenetic analyses

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DNA SEQUENCE; GENE REARRANGEMENT; GENOME; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MUTATION; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PHYLOGENY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYNTENY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENE REARRANGEMENT; GENOME; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; PHYLOGENY; ROC CURVE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SYNTENY;

VERTEBRATA;

EID: 80052624718     PISSN: 10665277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2011.0114     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Alekseyev, M., and Pevzner, P. 2009. Breakpoint graphs and ancestral genome reconstructions. Genome Res. 19, 943-957.
2. Amrine-Madsen, H., Koepfli, K.-P., Wayne, R., et al. 2003. A new phylogenetic marker, apolipoprotein b, provides compelling evidence for eutherian relationships. Mol. Phylogenet Evol. 28, 225-240. (Pubitemid 37446824)
3. Bergeron, A., Mixtacki, J., and Stoye, J. 2006. A unifying view of genome rearrangements. In Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4175, 163-173. (Pubitemid 44609667)
4. Blanchette, M., Bourque, G., and Sankoff, D. 1997. Breakpoint phylogenies, 25-34. In Miyano, S., and Takagi, T., eds., Genome Informatics, University Academy Press, Tokyo.
5. Bourque, G., and Pevzner, P. 2002. Genome-scale evolution: reconstructing gene orders in the ancestral species. Genome Res. 12, 26-36. (Pubitemid 34065587)
6. Cannarozzi, G., Schneider, A., and Gonnet, G 2007. A phylogenomic study ofhuman, dog, and mouse. PLo S Comput. Biol. 3, e2.
7. Day, W., and Sankoff, D. 1987. The computational complexity of inferring phylogenies from chromosome inversion data. J. Theor. Biol. 127, 213-218. (Pubitemid 17004339)
8. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39, 783-791.
9. Felsenstein, J., and Kishino, H. 1993. Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on phylogenies? A reply to Hillis and Bull. Syst. Biol. 42, 193-200.
10. Fertin, G., Labarre, A., Rusu, I., et al. 2009. Combinatorics of Genome Rearrangements. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Hillis, D., and Huelsenbeck, J. 1995. Assessing molecular phylogenies. Science 267, 255-256.
12. Huttley, G., Wakefield, M., and Easteal, S. 2007. Rates of genome evolution and branching order from whole-genome analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1722-1730. (Pubitemid 47236694)
13. Lin, Y., and Moret, B. 2008. Estimating true evolutionary distances under the DCJ model. Bioinformatics 24, i114-i122. (Pubitemid 351911664)
14. Lin, Y., Rajan, V., Swenson, K., et al. 2010. Estimating true evolutionary distances under rearrangements, duplications, and losses. BMCBioinform. 11, S54.
15. Madsen, O., Scally, M., Douady, C., et al. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades ofplacental mammals. Nature 409, 610-614. (Pubitemid 32154811)
16. Moret, B., Tang, J., Wang, L.-S., et al. 2002. Steps toward accurate reconstructions of phylogenies from gene-order data. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 65, 508-525. (Pubitemid 41161953)
17. Moret, B., Wyman, S., Bader, D., et al. 2001. A new implementation and detailed study of breakpoint analysis. Proc. 6th Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 583-594.
18. Murphy, W., Eizirik, E., Johnson, W., et al. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409, 614-618. (Pubitemid 32154812)
19. R Development Core Team, 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
20. Robinson, D., and Foulds, L. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53, 131-147. (Pubitemid 11129084)
21. Rokas, A., and Holland, P. 2000. Rare genomic changes as a tool for phylogenetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 454-459.
22. Saitou, N., and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406-425.
23. Shi, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, H., et al. 2010. Using jackknife to assess the quality of gene order phylogenies. BMC Bioinform. 11, 168.
24. Soltis, P., and Soltis, D. 2003. Applying the bootstrap in phylogeny reconstruction. Statist. Sci. 18, 256-267. (Pubitemid 37545098)
25. Sturtevant, A. 1926. A crossover reducer in Drosophila melanogaster due to inversion of a section of the third chromosome. Biol. Zent. Bl. 46, 697-702.
26. Sturtevant, A., and Dobzhansky, T. 1936. Inversions in the third chromosome of wild races of drosophila pseu-doobscura and their use in the study of the history of the species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 22, 448-450.
27. Swofford, D., Olsen, G., Waddell, P., et al. 1996. Phylogenetic inference, 407-514. In Hillis, D., Mable, B., and Moritz, C., eds., Molecular Systematics, Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA.
28. Tang, J., and Moret, B. 2003. Scaling up accurate phylogenetic reconstruction from gene-order data. Bioinformatics 19, i305-i312.
29. Wang, L.-S. 2001. Exact-IEBP: a new technique for estimating evolutionary distances between whole genomes. Proc. STOC'01, 637-646. (Pubitemid 32865781)
30. Wang, L.-S., and Warnow, T. 2001. Estimating true evolutionary distances between genomes. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2149, 176-190.
31. Wildman, D., Uddin, M., Opazo, J., et al. 2007. Genomics, biogeography, and the diversification of placental mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 14395-14400. (Pubitemid 350003272)
32. Yancopoulos, S., Attie, O., and Friedberg, R. 2005. Efficient sorting of genomic permutations by translocation, inversion and block interchange. Bioinformatics 21, 3340-3346. (Pubitemid 41222437)
33. Zwickl, D., and Hillis, D. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51, 588-598. (Pubitemid 35180690)