Pruning rogue taxa improves phylogenetic accuracy: An efficient algorithm and webservice

Systematic Biology

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 162-166

  Aberer, Andre J ^a   Krompass, Denis ^a   Stamatakis, Alexandros ^a  

^a HEIDELBERG INSTITUTE FOR THEORETICAL STUDIES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bootstrap support; consensus tree; phylogenetic postanalysis; rogue taxa; software; webservice

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ALGORITHMS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INTERNET; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84871832204     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys078     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aberer A. J., Stamatakis A. 2011. A simple and accurate method for rogue taxon identification. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine; Atlanta (GA), IEEE, p. 118-122.
2. Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. 61. p. 163-184.
3. Dunn C. W., Hejnol A., Matus D. Q., Pang K., Browne W. E., Smith S. A., Seaver E., Rouse G. W., Obst M., Edgecombe G. D., Sørensen M. V., Haddock S. H. D., Schmidt-Rhaesa A., Okusu A., Kristensen R. M., Wheeler W. C., Martindale M. Q., Giribet G. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452:745-749.
4. Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
5. Maddison W., Maddison D. 2008. Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Evolution 62:1103-1118.
6. Pattengale N., Aberer A., Swenson K., Stamatakis A., Moret B. 2011. Uncovering hidden phylogenetic consensus in large datasets. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 8:902-911.
7. Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J. 2003. Mrbayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572.
8. Sanderson M., Shaffer H. 2002. Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:49-72.
9. Shafer A., Hall J. 2010. Placing the mountain goat: a total evidence approach to testing alternative hypotheses. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 55:18-25.
10. Sperling E., Peterson K., Pisani D. 2009. Phylogenetic-signal dissection of nuclear housekeeping genes supports the paraphyly of sponges and the monophyly of Eumetazoa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 26: 2261-2274.
11. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690.
12. Swofford, D. 2003. PAUP*;: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Sunderland (MA), Sinauer Associates, Version 4. 0 b10.
13. Thomson R., Shaffer H. (2010a). Rapid progress on the vertebrate tree of life. BMC Biol. 8:19.
14. Thomson R., Shaffer H. (2010b). Sparse supermatrices for phylogenetic inference: taxonomy, alignment, rogue taxa, and the phylogeny of living turtles. Syst. Biol. 59:42-58.
15. Thorley J., Wilkinson M. 1999. Testing the phylogenetic stability of early tetrapods. J. Theor. Biol. 200:343.
16. Wilkinson M. 1996. Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:437-444.
17. Zmasek C., Eddy S. 2001. ATV: display and manipulation of annotated phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:383-384.