Quantification and relative severity of inflated branch-support values generated by alternative methods: An empirical example

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 277-296

  Simmons, Mark P ^a   Norton, Andrew P ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Bootstrap; Maximum likelihood artifacts; Missing data; PhyML; RAxML; Supermatrix

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; RUBIACEAE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; RUBIACEAE;

RUBIACEAE; SPERMACOCEAE;

EID: 84875054472     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: 10959513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.01.020     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Andersson L., Rova J.H.E., Guarin F.A. Relationships, circumscription, and biogeography of Arctophyllum (Rubiaceae) based on evidence from cpDNA. Brittonia 2002, 54:40-49.
2. Andrew D.R. A new view of insect-crustacean relationships II. Inferences from expressed sequence tags and comparisons with neural cladistics. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 2011, 40:289-302.
3. Brammer C.A., von Dohlen C.D. Morphological phylogeny of the variable fly family Stratiomyidae (Insecta, Diptera). Zool. Scr. 2010, 39:363-377.
4. Brandley M.C., Warren D.L., Leache A.D., McGuire J.A. Homoplasy and clade support. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:184-198.
5. Bremer B., Manen J.-F. Phylogeny and classification of the subfamily Rubioideae (Rubiaceae). Plant Systemat. Evol. 2000, 225:43-72.
6. Bull J.J., Huelsenbeck J.P., Cunningham C.W., Swofford D.L., Waddell P.J. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 1993, 42:384-397.
7. Cummings M.P., Handley S.A., Myers D.S., Reed D.L., Rokas A., Winka K. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:477-487.
8. Davis J.I., Nixon K.C., Little D.P. The limits of conventional cladistic analysis. Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics 2005, 119-147. Oxford University Press, Oxford. V.A. Albert (Ed.).
9. Davis J.I., Simmons M.P., Stevenson D.W., Wendel J.F. Data decisiveness, data quality, and incongruence in phylogenetic analysis: an example from the monocotyledons using mitochondrial atpA sequences. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:282-310.
10. Davis J.I., Stevenson D.W., Petersen G., Seberg O., Campbell L.M., Freudenstein J.V., Goldman D.H., Hardy C.R., Michelangeli F.A., Simmons M.P., Specht C.D. A phylogeny of the monocots, as inferred from rbcL and atpA sequence variation, and a comparison of methods for calculating jackknife and bootstrap values. Syst. Bot. 2004, 29:467-510.
11. Doyle J.J. Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 1992, 17:144-163.
12. Doyle J.J. The irrelevance of allele tree topologies for species delimitation, and a non-topological alternative. Syst. Bot. 1995, 20:574-588.
13. Efron B., Halloran E., Holmes S. Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93:13429-13434.
14. Ekman S., Blaalid R. The devil in the details: interactions between the branch-length prior and likelihood model affect node support and branch lengths in the phylogeny of the Psoraceae. Syst. Biol. 2011, 60:541-561.
15. Faith D.P., Ballard J.W.O. Length differences and topology-dependent tests: a response to Källersjö et al. Cladistics 1994, 10:57-64.
16. Farris J.S., Albert V.A., Källersjö M., Lipscomb D., Kluge A.G. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 1996, 12:99-124.
17. Felsenstein J. The number of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 1978, 27:27-33.
18. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 1978, 27:401-410.
19. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985, 39:783-791.
20. Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies 2004, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland.
21. Fitch W.M. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst. Zool. 1971, 20:406-416.
22. Fouquet A., Noonan B.P., Rodrigues M.T., Pech N., Gilles A., Gemmell N.J. Multiple quaternary refugia in the eastern Guiana shield revealed by comparative phylogeography of 12 frog species. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:461-489.
23. Freudenstein J.V., Davis J.I. Branch support via resampling: an empirical study. Cladistics 2010, 26:643-656.
24. Gatesy J. Linked branch support and tree stability. Syst. Biol. 2000, 49:800-807.
25. Gatesy J., Matthee C., DeSalle R., Hayashi C. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 2002, 51:652-664.
26. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S. Methods for quick consensus estimation. Cladistics 2001, 17:S26-S34.
27. Goloboff P.A., Pol D.D. Parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetics. Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics 2005, 148-159. Oxford University Press, Oxford. V.A. Albert (Ed.).
28. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S., Källersjö M., Oxelman B., Ramírez M.J., Szumik C.A. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 2003, 19:324-332.
29. Goloboff P.A., Farris J.S., Nixon K.C. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 2008, 24:774-786.
30. Gouy M., Guindon S., Gascuel O. SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2010, 27:221-224.
31. Graybeal A. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem?. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:9-17.
32. Groeninckx I., Dessein S., Ochoterena H., Persson C., Motley T.J., Kårehed J., Bremer B., Huysmans S., Smets E. Phylogeny of the herbaceous trive Spermacoceae (Rubiaceae) based on plastid DNA data. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2009, 96:109-132.
33. Guindon S., Gascuel O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 2003, 52:696-704.
34. Guindon S., Dufayard J.-F., Lefort V., Anisimova M., Hordijk W., Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:307-321.
35. Guo X., Simmons M.P., But P.P.-H., Shaw P.-C., Wang R.-J. Application of DNA barcodes in Hedyotis L. (Spermacoceae, Rubiaceae). J. Systemat. Evol. 2011, 49:203-212.
36. Guo, X., Wang, R.-J., Simmons, M.P., But, P.P.-H., Yu, J., 2013 Phylogeny of the Asian Hedyotis-Oldenlandia complex (Spermacoceae, Rubiaceae), with resurrection of Dimetia, Scleromitrion, and Thecagonum. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 67, 110-122.
37. Hillis D.M. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 1996, 383:130-131.
38. Hillis D.M. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:3-8.
39. Hillis D.M., Bull J.J. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 1993, 42:182-192.
40. Holder M., Lewis P.O. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2003, 4:275-284.
41. Hudson R.R. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Ox. Surv. Evol. Biol. 1990, 7:1-44.
42. Huelsenbeck J.P., Rannala B. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 2004, 53:904-913.
43. Johnson K.A., Holland B.R., Heslewood M.M., Crayn D.M. Supermatrices, supertrees and serendipitous scaffolding: inferring a well-resolved, genus-level phylogeny of Styphelioideae (Ericaceae) despite missing data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 62:146-158.
44. Kårehed J., Groeninckx I., Dessein S., Motley T.J., Bremer B. The phylogenetic utility of chloroplast and nuclear DNA markers and the phylogeny of the Rubiaceae tribe Spermacoceae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2008, 49:843-866.
45. Kearney M., Clark J.M. Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils: a critical review. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 2003, 23:263-274.
46. Kitching I.J., Forey P.L., Humphries C.J., Williams D.M. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Kluge A.G. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis for relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 1989, 38:7-25.
48. Lemmon A.R., Brown J.M., Stanger-Hall K., Lemmon E.M. The effect of ambiguous data on phylogenetic estimates obtained by maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference. Syst. Biol. 2009, 58:130-145.
49. Maddison D.R. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 1991, 40:315-328.
50. Maddison W.P., Donoghue M.J., Maddison D.R. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Syst. Zool. 1984, 33:83-103.
51. Malia M.J., Lipscomb D.L., Allard M.W. The misleading effects of composite taxa in supermatrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 27:522-527.
52. Margush T., McMorris F.R. Consensus n-trees. Bull. Math. Biol. 1981, 43:239-244.
53. Marshall D.C. Cryptic failure of partitioned Bayesian phylogenetic analyses: lost in the land of long trees. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:108-117.
54. McKenna M.J., Simmons M.P., Bacon C.D., Lombardi J.A. Delimitation of the segregate genera of Maytenus sensu lato (Celastraceae) based on morphological and molecular characters. Syst. Bot. 2011, 36:922-932.
55. McMahon M.M., Sanderson M.J. Phylogenetic supermatrix analysis of GenBank sequences from 2228 papilionoid legumes. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55:818-836.
56. Morrison D.A. Increasing the efficiency of searches for the maximum likelihood tree in a phylogenetic analysis of up to 150 nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 2007, 56:988-1010.
57. Nixon K.C. The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics 1999, 15:407-414.
58. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 1996, 12:221-242.
59. Nixon K.C., Carpenter J.M. On consensus, collapsibility, and clade concordance. Cladistics 1996, 12:305-321.
60. Peters R.S., Meyer B., Krogmann L., Borner J., Meusemann K., Schutte K., Niehuis O., Misof B. The taming of an impossible child: a standardized all-in approach to the phylogeny of Hymenoptera using public database sequences. BMC Biol. 2011, 9:55.
61. Pickett K.M., Randle C.P. Strange bayes indeed: uniform topological priors imply non-uniform clade priors. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2005, 34:203-211.
62. Posada D. JModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:1253-1256.
63. Randle C.P., Pickett K.M. The conflation of ignorance and knowledge in the inference of clade posteriors. Cladistics 2010, 26:550-559.
64. Reeves J.H. Heterogeneity in the substitution process of amino acid sites of proteins coded for by mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 1992, 35:17-31.
65. Rice K.A., Donoghue M.J., Olmstead R.G. Analyzing large data sets: rbcL 500 revisited. Syst. Biol. 1997, 46:554-563.
66. Rindal E., Brower A.V.Z. Do model-based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data. Cladistics 2011, 27:331-334.
67. Ronquist F., Huelsenbeck J.P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 2003, 19:1572-1574.
68. Rothfels C.J., Larsson A., Kuo L.-Y., Korall P., Chiou W.-L., Pryer K.M. Overcoming deep roots, fast rates, and short internodes to resolve the ancient rapid radiation of eupolypod II ferns. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61:490-509.
69. Sanderson M.J., Kim J. Parametric phylogenetics?. Syst. Biol. 2000, 49:817-829.
70. Sanderson M.J., Wojciechowski M.F. Improved bootstrap confidence limits in large-scale phylogenies, with an example from neo-Astragalus (Leguminosae). Syst. Biol. 2000, 49:671-685.
71. Sanderson M.J., McMahon M.J., Steel M. Phylogenomics with incomplete taxon coverage: the limits of inference. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10:155.
72. SAS Institute Inc., 2012. SAS ver. 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
73. Schuh R.T., Polhemus J.T. Analysis of taxonomic congruence among morphological, ecological, and biogeographic data sets for the Leptopodomorpha (Hemiptera). Syst. Zool. 1980, 29:1-26.
74. Schweizer M., Guntert M., Hertwig S.T. Phylogeny and biogeography of the parrot genus Prioniturus (Aves: Psittaciformes). J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 2012, 50:145-156.
75. Sharkey M.J., Leathers J.W. Majority does not rule: the trouble with majority-rule consensus trees. Cladistics 2001, 17:282-284.
76. Siddall M.E. Success of parsimony in the four-taxon case: long-branch repulsion by likelihood in the Farris zone. Cladistics 1998, 14:209-220.
77. Siddall M.E. Unringing a bell: metazoan phylogenomics and the partition bootstrap. Cladistics 2010, 26:444-452.
78. Simmons M.P. Radical instability and spurious branch support by likelihood when applied to matrices with non-random distributions of missing data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 62:472-484.
79. Simmons M.P. Misleading results of likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses in the presence of missing data. Cladistics 2012, 28:208-222.
80. Simmons M.P., Freudenstein J.V. Spurious 99% bootstrap and jackknife support for unsupported clades. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2011, 61:177-191.
81. Simmons M.P., Ochoterena H. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 2000, 49:369-381.
82. Simmons M.P., Webb C.T. Quantification of the success of phylogenetic inference in simulations. Cladistics 2006, 22:249-255.
83. Simmons M.P., Bacon C.D., Cappa J.J., McKenna M.J. Phylogeny of Celastraceae subfamilies Cassinoideae and Tripterygioideae inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid loci. Syst. Bot. 2012, 37:456-467.
84. Simmons M.P., McKenna M.J., Bacon C.D., Yakobson K., Cappa J.J., Archer R.H., Ford A.J. Phylogeny of Celastraceae tribe Euonymeae inferred from morphological characters and nuclear and plastid genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 62:9-20.
85. Simmons M.P., Müller K.F., Norton A.P. Alignment of, and phylogenetic inference from, random sequences: the susceptibility of alternative alignment methods to creating artifactual resolution and support. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 57:1004-1016.
86. Simmons M.P., Ochoterena H., Carr T.G. Incorporation, relative homoplasy, and effect of gap characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 2001, 50:454-462.
87. Simmons M.P., Pickett K.M., Miya M. How meaningful are Bayesian posterior probabilities?. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2004, 21:188-199.
88. Soltis D.E., Gitzendanner M.A., Soltis P.S. A 567-taxon data set for angiosperms: the challenges posed by Bayesian analyses of large data sets. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2007, 168:137-157.
89. Spinks P.Q., Thomson R.C., Lovely G.A., Shaffer H.B. Assessing what is needed to resolve a molecular phylogeny: simulations and empirical data from emydid turtles. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009, 9:56.
90. Stamatakis A. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2688-2690.
91. Stamatakis, A., 2008. The RaxML 7.0.4 Manual. (downloaded 16.09.08). http://icwww.epfl.ch/_stamatak/index-Dateien/Page443.htm.
92. Stamatakis A., Goker M., Grimm G.W. Maximum likelihood analyses of 3,490rbcL sequences: scalability of comprehensive inference versus group-specific taxon sampling. Evol. Bioinform. 2010, 6:73-90.
93. Stamatakis A., Hoover P., Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst. Biol. 2008, 57:758-771.
94. Stamatakis A., Ludwig T., Meier H. RAxML-III: a fast program for maximum likelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:456-463.
95. Stöver B.C., Müller K.F. TreeGraph 2: combining and visualizing evidence from different phylogenetic analyses. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11:7.
96. Sumrall C.D., Brochu C.A., Merck J.W. Global lability, regional resolution, and majority-rule consensus bias. Paleobiology 2001, 27:254-261.
97. Suzuki Y., Glazko G.V., Nei M. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 16138-16143.
98. *and other methods) 2001, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
99. *and other methods) Version 4.0 Beta Version Beta Documentation 2001, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
100. Tavaré S. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect. Math. Life Sci. 1986, 17:57-86.
101. Wertheim J.O., Sanderson M.J., Worobey M., Bjork A. Relaxed molecular clocks, the bias-variance trade-off, and the quality of phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:1-8.
102. Wiens J.J. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy?. Syst. Biol. 1998, 47:625-640.
103. Wiens J.J. Incomplete taxa, incomplete characters, and phylogenetic accuracy: is there a missing data problem?. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 2003, 23:297-310.
104. Wiens J.J. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. J. Biomed. Inform. 2006, 39:34-42.
105. Wiens J.J., Morrill M.C. Missing data in phylogenetic analysis: reconciling results from simulations and empirical data. Syst. Biol. 2011, 60:719-731.
106. Yang L., Arunachalam M., Sado T., Levin B.A., Golubtsov A.S., Freyhof J., Friel J.P., Chen W.-J., Hirt M.V., Manickam R., Agnew M.K., Simons A.M., Saitoh K., Miya M., Mayden R.L., He S. Molecular phylogeny of the cyprinid tribe Labeonini (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 65:362-379.
107. Yang Z. Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1993, 10:1396-1401.
108. Yang Z. Computational Molecular Evolution 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
109. Yang Z., Rannala B. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1997, 14:717-724.
110. Zhang L.-B., Simmons M.P. Phylogeny and delimitation of the Celastrales inferred from nuclear and plastid genes. Syst. Bot. 2006, 31:122-137.
111. Zwickl, D.J., 2006. Genetic Algorithm Approaches for the Phylogenetic Analysis of Large Biological Sequence Datasets under the Maximum Likelihood Criterion. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
112. Zwickl, D.J., 2009. GARLI 0.96 Settings Cheat Sheet (Smithsonian, June 09). Distributed by the Author.
113. Zwickl, D.J., 2012. GARLI Configuration Settings. (downloaded 30.05.12). https://www.nescent.org/wg_garli/GARLI_Configuration_Settings.