The impact of taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference: A review of two decades of controversy

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 122-134

  Nabhan, Ahmed Ragab ^a,b   Sarkar, Indra Neil ^c  

^a University of Vermont   (United States)

^b Department of Computer Science   (Egypt)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Phylogenetics; Taxonomic sampling

Indexed keywords

DNA SEQUENCE; GENOME; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW;

EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENOME; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84855712054     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbr014     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Baum D. Reading a phylogenetic tree: the meaning of monophyletic groups. Nat Educ 2008;1. http://www .nature.com/scitable/topicpage/reading-a-phylogenetic -tree-the-meaning-of-41956.
2. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. NatRev Genet 2005;6: 361-75.
3. Saitou N, Nei M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 1987;4:406.
4. Atteson K. The performance of neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Algorithmica 1999;25: 251-78.
5. Studier J, Keppler K. A note on the neighbor-joining algorithm of Saitou and Nei. Mol Biol Evol 1988;5:729-31.
6. Simonsen M, Mailund T, Pedersen C. Rapid neighbourjoining. Algorithms Bioinformatics 2008;5251:113-22.
7. Sober E. Parsimony in systematics: Philosophical Issues. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1983;14:335-57.
8. Day W. Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies from dissimilarity matrices. BullMath Biol 1987;49:461-7.
9. Bremer K. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 1994; 10:295-304.
10. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 1981;17:368-76.
11. Yang Z. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. JMol Evol 1994;39:306-14.
12. Huelsenbeck J, Ronquist F, Nielsen R, et al. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 2001;294:2310.
13. Holder M, Lewis PO. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat Rev Genet 2003;4:275-84.
14. Pagel M, Meade A. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. AmNat 2006;167:808-25.
15. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2004.
16. Swofford D, Olsen G, Waddell P, et al. MolecularSystematics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1996;407-514.
17. Page R, Holmes E. Molecular Evolution: a Phylogenetic Approach. Malden, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998.
18. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985;39:783-91.
19. Freeman S, Herron J, Payton M. Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007.
20. Kim J. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst Biol 1996;45:363.
21. DeSalle R, Schierwater B. An even "newer" animal phylogeny. Bioessays 2008;30:1043-7.
22. Thorley J. Cladistic information, leaf stability and supertree construction. PhD Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences. University of Bristol, UK, 2000.
23. Bergsten J. A review of long branch attraction. Cladistics 2005;21:163-93.
24. Sereno PC. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. Syst Biol 2005;54:595.
25. Rosenberg M, Kumar S. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst Biol 2003;52:119-24.
26. Felsenstein J. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. Annu RevGenet 1988;22:521-65.
27. Kim J. Improving the accuracy of phylogenetic estimation by combining different methods. Syst Biol 1993;42:331.
28. Wiens J, Servedio M. Accuracy of phylogenetic analysis including and excluding polymorphic characters. Syst Biol 1997;46:332.
29. Poe S. Evaluation of the strategy of long-branch subdivision to improve the accuracy of phylogenetic methods. Syst Biol 2003;52:423-8.
30. Rannala B, Huelsenbeck J, Yang Z, et al. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of large phylogenies. Syst Biol 1998;47:702.
31. Guindon S, Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 2003;52:696.
32. Desper R, Gascuel O. Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction algorithms based on the minimum-evolution principle. JComputBiol 2002;9:687-705.
33. Hillis D. Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. SystBiol 1995;44:3.
34. Huelsenbeck J. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst Biol 1995;44:17.
35. Huelsenbeck J. The robustness of two phylogenetic methods: four-taxon simulations reveal a slight superiority of maximum likelihood over neighbor joining. Mol Biol Evol 1995;12:843.
36. Song H, Sheffield N, Cameron S, et al. When phylogenetic assumptions are violated: base compositional heterogeneity and among-site rate variation in beetle mitochondrial phylogenomics. Syst Entomol 2010;35:429-48.
37. Degnan JH, Rosenberg NA. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. TrendsEcol Evol 2009;24:332-40.
38. Rokas A, Williams B, King N, et al. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 2003;425:798-804.
39. Hedtke S, Townsend T, Hillis D. Resolution of phylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxon sampling. Syst Biol 2006;55:522.
40. Baurain D, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. Lack of resolution in the animal phylogeny: Closely spaced cladogeneses or undetected systematic errors? Mol Biol Evol 2007;24:6.
41. Kumar S, Rzhetsky A. Evolutionary relationships of eukaryotic kingdoms. JMol Evol 1996;42:183-93.
42. Giribet G. Current advances in the phylogenetic reconstruction of metazoan evolution. A new paradigm for the Cambrian explosion? Mol Phylogenet Evol 2002;24:345-57.
43. Mallatt J, Garey J, Shultz J. Ecdysozoan phylogeny and Bayesian inference: first use of nearly complete 28S and 18S rRNA gene sequences to classify the arthropods and their kin. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2004;31:178-91.
44. Rokas A, King N, Finnerty J, etal. Conflicting phylogenetic signals at the base of the metazoan tree. Evol Dev 2003;5: 346-59.
45. Rokas A, Carroll S. More genes or more taxa? The relative contribution of gene number and taxon number to phylogenetic accuracy. Mol Biol Evol 2005;22:1337.
46. Yang Z, Nielsen R, Hasegawa M. Models of amino acid substitution and applications to mitochondrial protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol 1998;15:1600.
47. Aguinaldo A, Turbeville J, Linford L, et al. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 1997;387:489-93.
48. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol 2005;22:1246.
49. Blair J, Ikeo K, Gojobori T, et al. The evolutionary position of nematodes. BMC Evol Biol 2002;2:7.
50. Wolf Y, Rogozin I, Koonin E. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res 2004;14:29.
51. Evans N, Holder M, Barbeitos M, et al. The phylogenetic position of Myxozoa: exploring conflicting signals in phylogenomic and ribosomal datasets. Mol Biol Evol 2010;27: 2733-46.
52. Poe S, Swofford DL. Taxon sampling revisited. Nature 1999;398:299-300.
53. Tamura K, Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol 1993;10: 512.
54. Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. JMol Evol 1980;16:111-20.
55. Huson D, Bryant D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol 2006;23:254.
56. Gruber K, Voss R, Jansa S. Base-compositional heterogeneity in the RAGl locus among didelphid marsupials: implications for phylogenetic inference and the evolution of GC content. Syst Biol 2007;56:83.
57. Jeffroy O, Brinkmann H, Delsuc F, et al. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends Genet 2006;22: 225-31.
58. Conant G, Lewis P. Effects of nucleotide composition bias on the success of the parsimony criterion in phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol 2001;18:1024.
59. Kuzoff R, Sweere J, Soltis D, et al. The phylogenetic potential of entire 26S rDNA sequences in plants. Mol Biol Evol 1998;15:251.
60. Drummond A, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol 2007;7: 214.
61. Wertheim J, Sanderson M, Worobey M, et al. Relaxed molecular clocks, the biasñvariance trade-off, and the quality of phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 2010;59:1.
62. Lepage T, Bryant D, Philippe H, etal. A general comparison of relaxed molecular clock models. Mol Biol Evol 2007;24: 2669.
63. Townsend J. Profiling phylogenetic informativeness. Syst Biol 2007;56:222.
64. Townsend JP, Lopez-Giraldez F. Optimal selection of gene and ingroup taxon sampling for resolving phylogenetic relationships. SystBiol 2010;59:446-57.
65. Rosenberg M, Kumar S. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. ProcNatl Acad SciUSA 2001;98:10751.
66. Wiens J. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst Biol 2003;52:528.
67. Graybeal A. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst Biol 1998;47:9.
68. Pollock D, Zwickl D, McGuire J, et al. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 2002;51:664-71.
69. Hillis D, Pollock D, McGuire J, et al. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst Biol 2003; 52:124-6.
70. Wiens J. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. J Biomed Inform 2006;39:34-42.
71. Dunn C, Hejnol A, Matus D, et al. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 2008;452:745-9.
72. Sullivan J, Swofford D, Naylor G. The effect of taxon sampling on estimating rate heterogeneity parameters of maximum-likelihood models. Mol Biol Evol 1999;16: 1347-56.
73. Kallersjo M, Albert V, Farris J. Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics 1999;15:91-3.
74. Goldman N. Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 1998; 265:1779.
75. Akaike H. Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. Hungary: Budapest, 1973;267-281.
76. Rissanen J. Fisher information and stochastic complexity. IEEETrans InformTheory 2002;42:40-7.
77. Gatesy J, DeSalle R, Wahlberg N. How many genes should a systematist sample? Conflicting insights from a phylogenomic matrix characterized by replicated incongruence. Syst Biol 2007;56:355.
78. Geuten K, Massingham T, Darius P, et al. Experimental design criteria in phylogenetics: where to add taxa. Syst Biol 2007;56:609.
79. Graybeal A. Evaluating the phylogenetic utility of genes: a search for genes informative about deep divergences among vertebrates. Syst Biol 1994;43:174.
80. Hillis DM. Inferring complex phytogenies. Nature 1996;383: 130-1.
81. Hillis D. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst Biol 1998;47:3-8.
82. Poe S. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxonomic sampling. Syst Biol 1998;47:18-31.
83. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Mort ME, et al. Inferring complex phylogenies using parsimony: an empirical approach using three large DNA data sets for angiosperms. Syst Biol 1998; 47:32-42.
84. Kim J. Large-scale phylogenies and measuring the performance of phylogenetic estimators. Syst Biol 1998;47:43-60.
85. Zwickl D, Hillis D. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol 2002;51:588.
86. Heath T, Hedtke S, Hillis D. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. JSystEvol 2008;46:239-57.
87. Lemmon A, Brown J, Stanger-Hall K, et al. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Syst Biol 2009;58:130.
88. Kubatko L, Degnan J. Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst Biol 2007;56:17.
89. Maddison W. Gene trees in species trees. Syst Biol 1997;46: 523.
90. Page RDM, Charleston MA. Reconciled trees and incongruent gene and species trees. In: Mirkin B, McMorris FR, Roberts FS, Rzhetsky A, (eds). Mathematical Hierarchies and Biology, DIMACS Workshop. American Mathematical Society, 1997;57.
91. Wolf Y, Rogozin I, Grishin N, et al. Genome trees and the tree of life. TrendsGenet 2002;18:472-9.
92. Philippe H, Telford M. Large-scale sequencing and the new animal phylogeny. Trends Ecol Evol 2006;21:614-20.
93. Sarkar IN, Egan M, Coruzzi G, et al. Automated simultaneous analysis phylogenetics(ASAP): an enabling tool for phlyogenomics. BMC Bioinformatics 2008;9:103.
94. de La Torre-Barcena J, Kolokotronis S, Lee E, et al. The impact of outgroup choice and missing data on major seed plant phylogenetics using genome-wide EST data. PloSOne 2009;4:e5764.
95. Keeling P, Burger G, Durnford D, et al. The tree of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol Evol 2005;20:670-6.
96. Agnarsson I, May-Collado LJ. The phylogeny of Cetartiodactyla: the importance of dense taxon sampling, missing data, and the remarkable promise of cytochrome b to provide reliable species-level phylogenies. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2008;48:964-85.
97. Havird J, Miyamoto M. The importance of taxon sampling in genomic studies: an example from the cyclooxygenases of teleost fishes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2010;56:451-5.