Alignment errors strongly impact likelihood-based tests for comparing topologies

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 3057-3067

  Karin, Eli Levy ^a   Susko, Edward ^b   Pupko, Tal ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

alignment; alignment uncertainty; branch length optimization; KH test; likelihood; phylogeny; SOWH test; tree comparisons

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HYPOTHESIS; KISHINO HASEGAWA TEST; PARAMETRIC TEST; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; GENETICS; HUMAN; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PHYLOGENY; PRIMATE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNCERTAINTY;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; PRIMATES; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84910644471     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu231     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Capella-Gutierrez S, Gabaldon T 2013 Measuring guide-tree dependency of inferred gaps in progressive aligners. Bioinformatics 29 1011-1017.
2. Daubin V, Moran AN, Ochman H. 2003. Phylogenetics and the cohesion of bacterial genomes. Science 301:829-832.
3. Fletcher W, Yang Z. 2009. INDELible: a flexible simulator of biological sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 26:1879-1888.
4. Fletcher W, Yang Z. 2010. The effect of insertions, deletions, and alignment errors on the branch-site test of positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 27:2257-2267.
5. Goldman N, A nderson PJ, Rodrigo GA. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst Biol. 49:652-670.
6. Guindon S, Dufayard FJ, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 59:307-321.
7. Jones DT, Taylor RW, Thornton MJ. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput Appl Biosci. 8: 275-282.
8. Jordan G, Goldman N. 2012. The effects of alignment error and alignment filtering on the sitewise detection of positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 29:1125-1139.
9. Katoh K, Standley MD. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 30:772-780.
10. Kishino H, Hasegawa M. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. J Mol Evol. 29: 170-179.
11. Kishino H, Miyata T, Hasegawa M. 1990. Maximum-likelihood inference of protein phylogeny and the origin of chloroplasts. J Mol Evol. 31: 151-160.
12. Landan G, Graur D. 2009. Characterization of pairwise and multiple sequence alignment errors. Gene 441:141-147.
13. Lister AM, Edwards JC, Nock AD, Bunce M, van Pijlen AI, Bradley GD, Thomas GM, Barnes I. 2005. The phylogenetic position of the ? giant deer' Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 438:850-853.
14. Liu K, Raghavan S, Nelesen S, Linder RC, Warnow T. 2009. Rapid and accurate large-scale coestimation of sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees. Science 324:1561-1564.
15. Nelesen S, Liu K, Zhao D, Linder RC, Warnow T. 2008. The effect of the guide tree on multip le sequence alignments and subsequent phylogenetic analyses. Pac Symp Biocomput. 13: 25-36.
16. Ogden TH, Rosenberg SM. 2006. Multiple sequence alignment accuracy and phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 55:314-328.
17. Penn O, Privman E, Ashkenazy H, Landan G, Graur D, Pupko T. 2010. GUIDANCE: a web server for assessing alignment confidence scores. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:W23-W28.
18. Penn O, Privman E, Landan G, Graur D, Pupko T. 2010. An alignment confidence score capturing robustness to guide tree uncertainty. Mol Biol Evol. 27:1759-1767.
19. Perelman P, Johnson EW, Roos C , SeuánezHN, Horvath JE, MoreiraMA, Kessing B, Pontius J, Roelke M, Rumpler Y, et al. 2011. A molecular phylogeny of living primates. PLoS Genet. 7:e1001342.
20. Privman E, Penn O, Pupko T. 2012. Improving the performance of positive selection inference by filtering unreliable alignment regions. Mol Biol Evol. 29:1-5.
21. Ranwez V, Delsuc F, Ranwez S, Belkhi r K, Tilak KM, Douzery JE. 2007. OrthoMaM: a database of orthologous genomic markers for placental mammal phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol. 7:241.
22. Schmidt HA, Strimmer K, Vingron M, von Haeseler A. 2002. TREEPUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing. Bioinformatics 18:502-504.
23. Shimodaira H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol. 51:492-508.
24. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference.Mol Biol Evol. 16: 1114-1116.
25. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 2001. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17: 1246-1247.
26. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell JP, Hillis MD. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable KB, editors. Molecular systematics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. p. 407-514.
27. Talavera G, Castresana J. 2007. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol. 56:564-577.
28. Teeling EC, Scally M, Kao JD, Romagnoli LM, Springer SM, Stanhope JM. 2000. Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation and flight in bats. Nature 403:188-192.
29. Toth A, Hausknecht A, Krisai-Greilhuber I, Papp T, Vagvolgyi C, Nagy GL. 2013. Iteratively refined guide trees help improving alignment and phylogenetic infer ence in the mushroom family Bolbitiaceae. PLoS One 8:e56143.
30. Wang LS, Leebens-Mack J, Kerr Wall P, Beckmann K, dePamphilis WC, Warnow T. 2011. The impact of multiple protein sequence alignment on phylo genetic estimation. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 8:1108-1119.
31. Yang Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1586-1591.