Hybrid Tree Reconstruction Methods

ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics

Volumn 4, Issue , 1999, Pages 5-

  Huson, Daniel ^a   Yooseph, Shibu ^a   Nettles, Scott ^b   Rice, Kenneth ^c   Warnow, Tandy ^d  

^a CELERA GENOMICS   (United States)

^b The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^c GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009007269     PISSN: 10846654     EISSN: 10846654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/347792.347812     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Agarwala, R., Bafna, V., Farach, M., Narayanan, B., Paterson, M., and Thorup, M. 1996. On the approximability of numerical taxonomy: fitting distances by tree metrics. Proceedings of the 7th Annual AC’M-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 365-372.
2. Atteson, K. 1997. The performance of neighbor-joining algorithms of phylogeny reconstruction. In T. Jiang and D. Lee Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1276, pp. 101-110. Springer-Verlag. Computing and Combinatorics, Third Annual International Conference, COCOON ’97, Shanghai, China, August 1997, Proceedings.
3. Barthélemy, J.-P. 1991. Trees and Proximity Representations. Wiley.
4. Beeey, V. and Gascuel, O. 1997. Inferring evolutionary trees with strong combinatorial evidence. In T. Jiang and D. Lee Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1276, pp. 111-123. Springer-Verlag. Computing and Combinatorics, Third Annual International Conference, COCOON ’97, Shanghai, China, August 1997 Proceedings.
5. Buneman, P. 1971. The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, pp. 387-395. Edinburgh University Press.
6. Eedős, P. L., Steel, M. A., Székely, L. A., and Waenow, T. 1997b. Constructing big trees from short sequences. In G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. van Leeuwen Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 1256. ICALP’97, 24th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (Silver Jubilee of EATCS), Bologna, Italy, July 7th-11th, 1997.
7. Eedős, P. L., Steel, M. A., Székely, L. A., and Waenow, T. 1997a. A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees I. DIMACS Technical Report 97-71, submitted to: Random Structures and Algorithms.
8. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27, 401-410.
9. Felsenstein, J. 1989. PHYLIP-phylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5, 164-166.
10. Foulds, L. R. and Graham, R. L. 1982. The steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete. Adv. Appl. Math. 3, 43-49.
11. Hillis, D. 1996. Inferring complex phytogenies. Nature 383, 130-131.
12. Hillis, D., Huelsenbeck, J., and Cunningham, C. 1994. Application and accuracy of molecular phytogenies. Science 264, 671-677.
13. Huelsenbeck, J. 1995a. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44, 17-48.
14. Huelsenbeck, J. 1995b. The robustness of two phylogenetic methods: four-taxon simulations reveal a slight superiority of maximum likelihood over neighbor-joining. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12, 5, 843-849.
15. Huelsenbeck, J. and Hillis, D. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42, 247-264.
16. Jukes, T. and Cantor, C. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. In H. Munro Ed., Mammalian Protein Metabolism, pp. 21-132. Academic Press.
17. Kuhner, M. and Felsenstein, J. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11, 459-468.
18. Purvis, A. and Quicke, D. 1997. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 2, 49-50.
19. Rannala, B., Huelsenbeck, J., Yang, Z., and Nielsen, R. 1998. Taxon Sampling and the accuracy of large phytogenies. To appear in: Systematic Biology.
20. Rice, K. 1997. ECAT, an evolution simulator, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~krice.
21. Rice, K., Donoghue, M., and Olmstead, R. 1997. Analyzing large datasets: rbcl 500 revisited. Systematic Biology.
22. Rice, K. and Waenow, T. 1997. Parsimony is hard to beat! In T. Jiang and D. Lee Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1276, pp. 124-133. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings, Computing and Combinatorics, Third Annual International Conference, COCOON ‘97, Shanghai, China, August 1997.
23. Saitou, N. and Imanishi, T. 1989. Relative efficiencies of the Fitch-Margoliash, maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, minimum evolution, and neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic tree construction in obtaining the correct tree. Mol. Biol. Evol. 6, 514-525.
24. Saitou, N. and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method, for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406-425.
25. Schöniger, M. and von Haeseler, A. 1995. Performance of maximum likelihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum parsimony methods when sequence sites are not independent. Syst. Biol. 44, 4, 533-547.
26. Sourdis, J. and Nei, M. 1996. Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5, 3, 393-411.
27. Strimmer, K. and von Haeseler, A. 1996. Accuracy of neighbor-joining for n-taxon trees. Syst. Biol. 45, 4, 516-523.
28. Swofford, D. L. 1992. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0s.
29. Warnow, T. 1994. Tree compatibility and inferring evolutionary history. J. of Algorithms 16, 388-407.
30. Warnow, T. 1996. Some combinatorial problems in phylogenetics. To appear in the proceedings of the International Colloquium on Combinatorics and Graph Theory, Balatonlelle, Hungary, July 15-20, eds. A. Gyárfás, L. Lovász, L.A. Székely, in a forthcoming volume of Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies.
31. Waterman, M., Smith, T., and Beyer, W. 1977. Additive evolutionary trees. Journal Theoretical Biol. 64, 199-213.