Literature DB >> 15140947

An assessment of accuracy, error, and conflict with support values from genome-scale phylogenetic data.

Derek J Taylor1, William H Piel.   

Abstract

Despite the importance of molecular phylogenetics, few of its assumptions have been tested with real data. It is commonly assumed that nonparametric bootstrap values are an underestimate of the actual support, Bayesian posterior probabilities are an overestimate of the actual support, and among-gene phylogenetic conflict is low. We directly tested these assumptions by using a well-supported yeast reference tree. We found that bootstrap values were not significantly different from accuracy. Bayesian support values were, however, significant overestimates of accuracy but still had low false-positive error rates (0% to 2.8%) at the highest values (>99%). Although we found evidence for a branch-length bias contributing to conflict, there was little evidence for widespread, strongly supported among-gene conflict from bootstraps. The results demonstrate that caution is warranted concerning conclusions of conflict based on the assumption of underestimation for support values in real data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15140947     DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Biol Evol        ISSN: 0737-4038            Impact factor:   16.240


  21 in total

1.  Phylogenetic incongruence arising from fragmented speciation in enteric bacteria.

Authors:  Adam C Retchless; Jeffrey G Lawrence
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Statistical measures of uncertainty for branches in phylogenetic trees inferred from molecular sequences by using model-based methods.

Authors:  Borys Wróbel
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Phylogenetic inference with weighted codon evolutionary distances.

Authors:  Alexis Criscuolo; Christian J Michel
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Genome-Based Taxonomic Classification of the Phylum Actinobacteria.

Authors:  Imen Nouioui; Lorena Carro; Marina García-López; Jan P Meier-Kolthoff; Tanja Woyke; Nikos C Kyrpides; Rüdiger Pukall; Hans-Peter Klenk; Michael Goodfellow; Markus Göker
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 5.640

5.  Analyses of the genetic diversity and protein expression variation of the acyl: CoA medium-chain ligases, ACSM2A and ACSM2B.

Authors:  Rencia van der Sluis
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 3.291

6.  Analysis of 1,000 Type-Strain Genomes Improves Taxonomic Classification of Bacteroidetes.

Authors:  Marina García-López; Jan P Meier-Kolthoff; Brian J Tindall; Sabine Gronow; Tanja Woyke; Nikos C Kyrpides; Richard L Hahnke; Markus Göker
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 5.640

7.  The evolution of novel fungal genes from non-retroviral RNA viruses.

Authors:  Derek J Taylor; Jeremy Bruenn
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 7.431

8.  Long-branch attraction bias and inconsistency in Bayesian phylogenetics.

Authors:  Bryan Kolaczkowski; Joseph W Thornton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Phylogenomic analyses support the monophyly of Taphrinomycotina, including Schizosaccharomyces fission yeasts.

Authors:  Yu Liu; Jessica W Leigh; Henner Brinkmann; Melanie T Cushion; Naiara Rodriguez-Ezpeleta; Hervé Philippe; B Franz Lang
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Automated masking of AFLP markers improves reliability of phylogenetic analyses.

Authors:  Patrick Kück; Carola Greve; Bernhard Misof; France Gimnich
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.