The shape of modern tree reconstruction methods

Systematic Biology

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 436-441

  Holton, Thérèse A ^a,b   Wilkinson, Mark ^c   Pisani, Davide ^d  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CLASSIFICATION; NOTE; PHYLOGENY;

ALGORITHMS; CLASSIFICATION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84898938993     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syt103     Document Type: Note

References (39)

1. Aldous D.J. 2001. Stochastic models and descriptive statistics for phylogenetic trees, from Yule to today. Stat. Sci. 16:23-34.
2. Blum M., Francois O. 2006. Which random processes describe the tree of liféAlarge-scale study of phylogenetic tree imbalance. Syst. Biol. 55:685-691.
3. Bortolussi N., Durand E., Blum M., Francois O. 2006. apTreeshape: Statistical analysis of phylogenetic tree shape. Bioinformatics 22:363-364.
4. Colless D. 1982. Review of phylogenetics: The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics, by E. 0. Wiley. Syst. Zool. 31:100-104.
5. Colless, D. 1995. Relative symmetry of cladograms and phenograms: An experimental study. Syst. Biol. 44:102-108.
6. Friedman M. 1937. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 32:675-701.
7. Guindon S., Dufayard J.F., Lefort V., Anisimova M., Hordijk W., Gascuel O. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximumlikelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59:307-321.
8. Guyer C., Slowinski J. 1993. Adaptive radiation and the topology of large phylogenies. Evolution 47:253-263.
9. Harcourt-Brown K., Pearson P., Wilkinson M. 2001. The imbalance of paleontological trees. Paleobiology 27:188-204.
10. Harvey P.H., Purvis A. 1991. Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature 351:619-624.
11. Heard S. 1992. Patterns in tree balance among cladistic, phenetic, and randomly generated phylogenetic trees. Evolution 46:1818-1826.
12. Hollander M., Wolfe D.A. 1999. Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley.
13. Holton T.A., Pisani D 2010. Deep genomic-scale analyses of the Metazoa reject Coelomata: Evidence from single-And multigene families analyzed under a supertree and supermatrix paradigm. Genome Biol. Evol. 2:310-324.
14. Hothorn T., Hornik K., van deWiel M., Zeileis A. 2008. Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. J. Stat. Softw. 28:1-23.
15. Huelsenbeck J., Kirkpatrick M 1996. Do phylogenetic methods produce trees with biased shapes? Evolution 50:1418-1424.
16. Jones D.T., Taylor W.R., Thornton J.M. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 8:275-282.
17. Jukes T., Cantor C. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro H.N., editor.Mammalian protein metabolism.New York: Academic Press.
18. Keane T., Creevey C., Pentony M., Naughton T., McLnerney J. 2006. Assessment of methods for amino acid matrix selection and their use on empirical data shows that ad hoc assumptions for choice of matrix are not justified. BMC Evol. Biol. 6:29.
19. Kirkpatrick M., Slatkin M. 1993. Searching for evolutionary patterns in the shape of a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 47:1171-1181.
20. Kupczok A. 2011. Consequences of different null models on the tree shape bias of supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 60:218-225.
21. Lartillot N., Philippe H. 2004.ABayesian mixturemodel for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-Acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1095-1109.
22. Le S., Gascuel O. 2008. An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:1307-1320.
23. McKenzie A., Steel M. 2000. Distributions of cherries for two models of trees. Math. Biosci. 164:81-92.
24. Mooers A., Heard S. 1997. Inferring evolutionary process from phylogenetic tree shape. Q. Rev. Biol. 72:31-54.
25. Paradis E., Claude J., Strimmer K. 2004. APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289-290.
26. Rogers J. 1994. Central moments and probability distribution of Colless's coefficient of tree imbalance. Evolution 48:2026-2036.
27. Rogers J. 1996. Central moments and probability distributions of three measures of phylogenetic tree imbalance. Syst. Biol. 45:99-110.
28. Ronquist, F., Teslenko, M., Van Der Mark, P., Ayres, D.L., Darling, A., Höhna, S., Larget, B., Liu, L., Suchard, M.A., Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology 61:539-542.
29. Rosen D.E. 1978. Vicariant pattern and historical biogeography. Syst. Zool. 27:159-188.
30. Schmidt H. A., Strimmer K., Vingron M., von Haeseler A. 2002. TREEPUZZLE: Maximumlikelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18:502-504.
31. Siegel S., Castellan N.J 1988.Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. Stam E 2002. Does imbalance in phylogenies reflect only bias? Evolution 56:1292-1295.
33. Stamatakis A., Ludwig T., Meier H. 2005. RAxML-III: A fast program formaximumlikelihood-based inference of large phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 21:456-463.
34. Swofford D.L. 1998. PAUP. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony ( and other methods). 4th ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
35. Thorley J.L., Wilkinson M. 2003. A view of supertree methods. In: Janovitz M.F., Lapointe F., McMorris F.R., Mirkin B., Roberts F.S., editors. Bioconsensus. p. 183-195. DIMCAS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science. Vol. 61. Providence, Rhode Island: The American Mathematical Society.
36. Vinh L.S., Fuehrer A., von Haeseler A. 2011. Random tree-puzzle leads to the Yule-Harding distribution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:873-877.
37. Wilkinson M., Cotton J., Creevey C., Eulenstein O., Harris S., Lapointe F., Levasseur C., McInerney J., Pisani D., Thorley J.L. 2005. The shape of supertrees to come: Tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. Syst. Biol. 54:419-431.
38. Yule G. 1924 A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. JC Willis FRS. Philos T Roy Soc Lon. B 213: 21-87.
39. Zhu S., Steel M. 2013 Does random tree puzzle produce Yule-Harding trees in the many-Taxon limit? Math. Biosci. 243:109-116.