When do phylogenetic mixture models mimic other phylogenetic models?

Systematic Biology

Volumn 61, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1049-1059

  Allman, Elizabeth S ^a   Rhodes, John A ^a   Sullivant, Seth ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84868010795     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys064     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Allman E.S., Ané C., Rhodes J.A. 2008. Identifiability of a Markovian model of molecular evolution with gamma-distributed rates. Adv. Appl. Probab. 40:229-249.
2. Allman E.S., Petrović S., Rhodes J.A., Sullivant S. 2011. Identifiability of two-tree mixtures for group-based models. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 8:710-722.
3. Allman E.S., Rhodes J.A. 2006. The identifiability of tree topology for phylogenetic models, including covarion and mixture models. J. Comput. Biol. 13:1101-1113.
4. Cavender J.A., Felsenstein J. 1987. Invariants of phylogenies in a simple case with discrete states. J. Class. 4:57-71.
5. Chai J., Housworth E.A. 2011. On Rogers's proof of identifiability for the GTR + Gamma + I Model. Syst. Biol. 60:713-718.
6. Eriksson N. 2005. Tree construction using singular value decomposition. In: Algebraic statistics for computational biology. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 347-358.
7. Evans J., Sullivan J. 2012. Generalized mixture models for molecular phylogenetic estimation. Syst. Biol. 61:12-21.
8. Evans S.N., Speed T.P. 1993. Invariants of some probability models used in phylogenetic inference. Ann. Statist. 21:355-377
9. Galtier N., Gouy M. 1998. Inferring pattern and process: maximumlikelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:871-879.
10. Hendy M.D. 1989. The relationship between simple revolutionary tree models and observable sequence data. Syst. Zool. 38:310-321.
11. Huelsenbeck J.P., Suchard M.A. 2007. A nonparametric method for accommodating and testing across-site rate variation. Syst. Biol. 56:975-987
12. Huelsenbeck J.P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
13. Kolaczkowski B., Thornton J.W. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heteogeneous. Nature 431:980-984.
14. Le S., Lartillot N., Gascuel O. 2008. Phylogenetic mixture models for proteins. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363:3965-3976.
15. Matsen F.A., Mossel E., Steel M. 2008. Mixed-up trees: the structure of phylogenetic mixtures. Bull. Math. Biol. 70:1115-1139.
16. Matsen F.A., Steel M.A. 2007. Phylogenetic mixtures on a single tree can mimic a tree of another topology. Syst. Biol. 56:767-775.
17. Mossel E., and Vigoda E. 2005. Phylogenetic MCMC algorithms are misleading on mixtures of trees. Science 309:2207-2209.
18. Mossel E., Vigoda E. 2006. Limitations of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Ann. Appl. Probab. 16:2215-2234.
19. Pagel M., Meade A. 2004. A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst. Biol. 53:571-581.
20. Pagel M., Meade A. 2005. Mixture models in phylogenetic inference. In: Mathematics of evolution and phylogeny. Gascuel O., editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 121-142.
21. Rhodes J.A., Sullivant S. 2012. Identifiability of large phylogenetic mixture models. Bull. Math. Biol. 74:212-231.
22. Ronquist F.R., Huelsenbeck J.P. 2003. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1574-1575.
23. Steel M., Sźekely L., Hendy M. 1994. Reconstructing trees when sequence sites evolve at variable rates. J. Comput. Biol. 1:153-163.
24. Steel M. 2009. A basic limitation on inferring phylogenies by pairwise sequence comparisons. J. Theor. Biol. 256:467-472.
25. Steel M. 2011. Can we avoid "SIN" in the house of "No Common Mechanism"? Syst. Biol. 60:96-109.
26. Tuffley C., Steel M. 1997. Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull. Math. Biol. 59:581-607
27. Štefankovič D., Vigoda E. 2007a. Phylogeny of mixture models: robustness of maximum likelihood and non-identifiable distributions. J. Comput. Biol. 14:156-189.
28. Štefankovič D., Vigoda E. 2007b. Pitfalls of heterogeneous processes for phylogenetic reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 56:113-124.
29. Wang H.C., Li K., Susko E., Roger A.J. 2008. A class frequency mixture model that adjusts for site-specific amino acid frequencies and improves inference of protein phylogeny BMC Evol. Biol. 8:331.
30. Yang Z., Roberts D. 1995. On the use of nucleic acid sequences to infer early branchings in the tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:451-458.
31. Yap V., Speed T. 2005. Rooting a phylogenetic tree with nonreversible substitution models. BMC Evol. Biol. 5:1-8.