Low-parameter phylogenetic inference under the general markov model

Systematic Biology

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 78-92

  Holland, Barbara R ^a   Jarvis, Peter D ^a   Sumner, Jeremy G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

base composition; Markov invariants; phylogenetic invariants; quartets; rate variation; supertrees

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETICS; MAMMAL; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MAMMALS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84871833016     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys072     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allman E. S., Rhodes J. A. 2008. Identifying evolutionary trees and substitution parameters for the general Markov model with invariable sites. Math. Biosci. 211:18-33.
2. Barry D., Hartigan J. A. 1987a. Asynchronous distance between homologous DNA sequences. Biometrics 43:261-276.
3. Barry D., Hartigan J. A. 1987b. Statistical analysis of hominoid molecular evolution. Stat. Sci. 2:191-207.
4. Baum B. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
5. Burnham K. P., Anderson D. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference. London: Springer-Verlag
6. Casanellas M., Fernández-Sánchez J. 2007. Performance of a new invariants method on homogeneous and nonhomogeneous quartet trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:288-293.
7. Cavender J. A. Felsenstein J. 1987. Invariants of phylogenies in a simple case with discrete states. J. Class. 4:57-71.
8. Chang J. T. 1996. Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. Math. Biosci. 137:51-73.
9. Creevey C. J., McInerney J. O. 2005. Clann: investigating phylogenetic information through supertree analyses. Bioinformatics 21:390-392.
10. Dávalos L. M., Perkins S. L. 2008. Saturation and base composition bias explain phylogenomic conflict in Plasmodium. Genomics 91:433-442.
11. Evans S. N., Speed T. P. 1993. Invariants of some probability models used in phylogenetic inference. Ann. Stat. 21:355-377.
12. Felsenstein J. 1989. PHYLIP-Phylogeny Inference Package. Version 3. 2. Cladistics 5:164-166.
13. Felsenstein J. 1991. Counting phylogenetic invariants in some simple cases. J. Theor. Biol. 152:357-376.
14. Foster P. G., Hickey D. A. 1999. Compositional bias may affect both DNA-based and protein-based phylogenetic reconstructions. J. Mol. Evol. 48:284-290.
15. Galtier N., Gouy M. 1995. Inferring phylogenies from DNA sequences of unequal base compositions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92:11317-11321.
16. 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.
17. Gaucher E. A., Miyamoto M. M. 2005. Acall for likelihood phylogenetics even when the process of sequence evolution is heterogeneous. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37:928-931.
18. Gojobori T., Li W.-H., Graur D. 1982. Patterns of nucleotide substitution in pseudogenes and functional genes. J. Mol. Evol. 18:360-369.
19. Goldman N., Thorne J. L., Jones D. T. 1996. Using evolutionary trees in protein secondary structure prediction and other comparative sequence analyses. J. Mol. Biol. 263:196-208.
20. Gruber K. F., Voss R. S., Jansa S. A. 2007. Base-compositional heterogeneity in the RAG1 locus among didelphid marsupials: implications for phylogenetic inference and the evolution of GC content. Syst. Biol. 56:83-96.
21. Grünewald S., Spillner A., Forslund K., Moulton V. 2008. Constructing phylogenetic supernetworks fromquartets. Lect. NotesComput. Sci. 5251:284-295.
22. Guindon S., Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52:696-704.
23. Hillis D. M. 1995. Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 44:3-16.
24. Holland B. R., Benthin S., Lockhart P. J., Moulton V., Huber K. T. 2008. Using supernetworks to distinguish hybridization from lineagesorting. BMC Evol. Biol. 8:202.
25. Holland B., Conner G., Huber K., Moulton V. 2007. Imputing supertrees and supernetworks from quartets. Syst. Biol. 56:57-67.
26. Huelsenbeck J. P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
27. Huelsenbeck J., Hillis D. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
28. Huson D. H., Bryant D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23:254-267.
29. Huson D. H., Dezulian T., Klöpper T., Steel M. A. 2004. Phylogenetic super-networks from partial trees. IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. 1:151-158.
30. Huson D., Steel M. 2006. Reducing distortion in phylogenetic networks. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4175:150-161.
31. Jayaswal V., Jermiin L. S., Robinson J. 2005. Estimation of phylogeny using a general Markov model. Evol. Bioinform. 1:62-80.
32. Jayaswal V., Robinson J., Jermiin L. S. 2007. Estimation of phylogeny and invariant sites under the general Markov model of nucleotide sequence evolution. Syst. Biol. 56:155-162.
33. Jermiin L. S., Jayaswal V., Ababneh F., Robinson J. 2008. Bioinformatics (vol. 452 of Methods in molecular biology). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
34. Jermiin L., Ho S. Y., Ababneh F., Robinson J., Larkum A. W. 2004. The biasing effect of compositional heterogeneity on phylogenetic estimates may be underestimated. Syst. Biol. 53:638-643.
35. Jukes T. H., Cantor C. R. 1969. Mammalian protein metabolism. 21-132.
36. Knight R., Maxwell P., Birmingham A., Carnes J., Caporaso J. G., Easton B. C., Eaton M., Hamady M., Lindsay H., Liu Z., Lozupone C., McDonald D., Robeson M., Sammut R., Smit S., Wakefield M. J., Widmann J., Wikman S., Wilson S., Ying H., Huttley G. A. 2007 PyCogent: a toolkit for making sense from sequence. Genome Biol. 8:R171.
37. Kolaczkowski B., Thornton J. W. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431:980-984.
38. Lake J. A. 1987. A rate-independent technique for analysis of nucleic acid sequences: evolutionary parsimony. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:167-191.
39. Lake J. A. 1994. Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein. Evolution 91:1455-1459.
40. Lockhart P. J., Howe C. J., Bryant D. A., Beanland T. J., Larkum A. W. 1992. Substitutional bias confounds inference of cyanelle origins from sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 34:153-162.
41. Lockhart P. J., Steel M. A., Hendy M. D., Penny D. 1994. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:605-612.
42. Oscamou M., McDonald D., Yap V. B., Huttley G. A., Lladser M. E., Knight R. 2008. Comparison of methods for estimating the nucleotide substitution matrix. BMC Bioinformatics 9:511.
43. 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.
44. Phillips M. J., Penny D. 2003. The root of the mammalian tree inferred fromwhole mitochondrial genomes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 28:171-185.
45. Phillips M. J., Delsuc F., Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1455-1458.
46. Ragan M. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
47. Snir S., Rao S. 2012. QuartetMaxCut: a fast algorithmfor amalgamating quartet trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 62:1-8.
48. Steel M. A. 1994. Recovering a tree fromthe leaf colourations it generates under a Markov model. Appl. Math. Lett. 7:19-24.
49. Steel M. 2005. Should phylogenetic models be trying to "fit an elephant". Trends Genet. 21:307-309.
50. Steel M., Erdos P. L., Waddell P. 1993. Acomplete family of phylogenetic invariants for any number of taxa under Kimura's 3ST model. New Zeal. J. Bot. 31:289-296.
51. Steel M., Huson D., Lockhart P. J. 2000. Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 49:225-232.
52. Strimmer K., Rambaut A. 2002. Inferring confidence sets of possibly misspecified gene trees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:137-142.
53. Sumner J. G. 2006. Entanglement, invariants, and phylogenetics [Ph. D. thesis] University of Tasmania. Available from: URL http://eprints. utas. edu. au/709/.
54. Sumner J. G., Jarvis P. D. 2009. Markov invariants and the isotropy subgroup of a quartet tree. J. Theor. Biol. 258:302-310.
55. Sumner J. G., Charleston M. A., Jermiin L. S., Jarvis P. D. 2008. Markov invariants, plethysms, and phylogenetics. J. Theor. Biol. 253:601-615.
56. Sumner J. G., Fernández-Sánchez J., Jarvis P. D. 2012a. Lie Markov models. J. Theor. Biol. 298:16-31.
57. Sumner J. G., Jarvis P. D., Fernández-Sánchez J., Kaine B. T., Woodhams M. D., Holland B. R. 2012b. Is the general time-reversible model bad formolecular phylogenetics Syst. Biol. doi: 10. 1093/sysbio/sys042.
58. Tamura K., Nei M. 1993. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrialDNAin humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:512-526.
59. Whelan S. 2008. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in nucleotide sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1683-1694.
60. Willson S. J. 1999. Building phylogenetic trees from quartets by using local inconsistency measures. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:685-693.
61. Zou L., Susko E., Field C., Roger A. J. 2011. The parameters of the Barry and Hartigan general Markov model are statistically nonidentifiable. Syst. Biol. 60:872-875.