Maximum likelihood inference of small trees in the presence of long branches

Systematic Biology

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 798-811

  Parks, Sarah L ^a   Goldman, Nick ^a  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analytic solutions; Long branch attraction; Maximum likelihood; Simulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84906216105     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu044     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson F.E., Swofford D.L. 2004. Should we be worried about longbranch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. Mol. Phylogenet. and Evol. 33:440-451.
2. Barros M.C., Sampaio I., Schneider H. 2008. Novel 12SmtDNAfindings in sloths (Pilosa, Folivora) and anteaters (Pilosa, Vermilingua) suggest a true case of long branch attraction. Genet. Mol. Biol. 31:793-799.
3. Bergsten J. 2005. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 21:163-193.
4. Bodilis J., Meilo S., Cornelius P., Vos P.D., Barray S. 2011. Along-branch attraction artifact reveals an adaptive radiation in Pseudomonas. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 28:2723-2726.
5. Chang J.T. 1996. Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency.Math. Biosci. 137: 51-73.
6. Chor B., Snir S. 2004. Molecular clock fork phylogenies: closed form analytic maximum likelihood solutions. Syst. Biol. 53: 963-967.
7. Chor B., Snir S. 2007. Analytic solutions of maximum likelihood on forks of four taxa. Math. Biosci. 208:347-358.
8. Chor B., Hendy M., Penny D. 2001. Analytic solutions for three taxon MLMC trees with variable rates across sites. Discrete Appl. Math. 155:750-758.
9. Chor B., Hendy M., Snir S. 2006a. Maximum likelihood Jukes-Cantor triplets: analytic solutions. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 23:626-632.
10. Chor B., Khetan A., Snir S. 2006b. Maximumlikelihood molecular clock comb: analytic solutions. J. Comput. Biol. 13:819-837.
11. Dabert M., Witalinski W., Kazmierski A., Olszanowski Z., Dabert J. 2010. Molecular phylogeny of acariform mites (Acari, Arachnida): strong conflict between phylogenetic signal and long-branch attraction artifacts. Mol. Phylogenet. and Evol. 56:222-241.
12. Dacks J.B., Marinets A., Ford Doolittle W., Cavalier-Smith T., Logsdon J.M. 2002. Analyses of RNA Polymerase II genes from free-living protists: phylogeny, long branch attraction, and the eukaryotic big bang. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 19:830-840.
13. Fares M.A., Byrne K.P., Wolfe K.H. 2006. Rate asymmetry after genome duplication causes substantial long-branch attraction artifacts in the phylogeny of Saccharomyces species. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 23:245-253.
14. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
15. Gaut B., Lewis P.O. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phlogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 12:152-162.
16. Guindon S., Dufayard J., Lefort V. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-ikelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59:307-321.
17. Hendy M.D., Penny D. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297.
18. Huelsenbeck J.P., Hillis D.M. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
19. Huelsenbeck J.P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
20. Huelsenbeck J.P. 1997. Is the Felsenstein Zone a fly trap? Syst. Biol. 46:69-74.
21. Huelsenbeck J.P. 1998. Systematic bias in phylogenetic analysis: Is the Strepsiptera problem solved? Syst. Biol. 47:519-537.
22. Inagaki Y., Susko E., Fast N.M., Roger A.J. 2004. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1alpha phylogenies. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 21:1340-1349.
23. Jukes T.H., Cantor C.R. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro, H.N., editor. Mammalian protein metabolism. New York (NY): Academic Press. p. 21-132.
24. Kim J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
25. Kuhner M.K., Felsenstein J. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 11:459-468.
26. Luenberger D. 1984. Introduction to linear and non-linear programming. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley.
27. Martyn I., Steel M. 2012. The impact and interplay of long and short branches on phylogenetic information content. J. Theor. Biol. 314:157-163.
28. Murphy W.J., Eizirik E., O'Brien S.J., Madsen O., Scally M., Douady C.J., Teeling E., Ryder O.A., Stanhope M.J., de Jong W.W., Springer M.S. 2001. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294:2348-2351.
29. Nasrallah C.A., Mathews D.H., Huelsenbeck J.P. 2011. Quantifying the impact of dependent evolution among sites in phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 60:60-73.
30. Omilian A.R., Taylor D.J. 2001. Rate acceleration and long-branch attraction in a conserved gene of cryptic daphniid (Crustacea) species. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 18:2201-2212.
31. Philippe H., Germot A. 2000. Phylogeny of eukaryotes based on ribosomal RNA : Long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 17:830-834.
32. Philippe H., Laurent J. 1998. How good are deep phylogenetic trees? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8:616-623.
33. Pol D., Siddall M. 2001. Biases in maximum likelihood and parsimony: a simulation approach to a 10-taxon case. Cladistics 17:266-281.
34. Qiu Y.L., Lee J., Whitlock B., Bernasconi-Quadroni F., Dombrovska O. 2001. Was the ANITA rooting of the angiosperm phylogeny affected by long-branch attraction? Amborella, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Trimeniaceae, and Austrobaileya. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 18: 1745-1753.
35. Rogers J.S. 1997. On the consistency of maximum likelihood estimation of phylogenetic trees from nucleotide sequences. Syst. Biol. 46:354-357.
36. Sanderson M.J., Wojciechowski M.F., Hu J.M., Khan T.S., Brady S.G. 2000. Error, bias, and long-branch attraction in data for two chloroplast photosystem genes in seed plants. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 17:782-797.
37. Schulmeister S. 2004. Inconsistency of maximum parsimony revisited. Syst. Biol. 53:521-528.
38. Stefanović S., Rice D.W., Palmer J.D. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol. Biol. 4:35.
39. Stiller J.W., Hall B.D. 1999. Long-branch attraction and therDNAmodel of early eukaryotic evolution. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 16:1270-1279.
40. Tavaré S. 1986. Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect. Math. Life Sci. 17:57-86.
41. Wiens J.J., Hollingsworth B.D. 2000. War of the Iguanas: conflicting molecular and morphological phylogenies and long-branch attraction in iguanid lizards. Syst. Biol. 49:143-159.
42. Wilcox T.P., García de León F.J., Hendrickson D.A., Hillis D.M. 2004. Convergence among cave catfishes: long-branch attraction and a Bayesian relative rates test.Mol. Phylogenet. and Evol. 31:1101-1113.
43. Yang Z. 2000. Complexity of the simplest phylogenetic estimation problem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267:109-116.
44. Yang Z. 2006. Computational Molecular Evolution. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
45. Yang Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 24:1586-1591.
46. Zharkikh A., Li W.H. 1992. Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. I. Four taxa with a molecular clock. Mol. Biol. and Evol. 9:1119-1147.