Literature DB >> 16044245

Biases in phylogenetic estimation can be caused by random sequence segments.

Edward Susko1, Mathew Spencer, Andrew J Roger.   

Abstract

We consider the effects of fully or partially random sequences on the estimation of four-taxon phylogenies. Fully or partially random sequences occur when whole subsets of sequences or some sites for subsets of sequences are independent of sequence data for the other taxa. Random sequences can be a consequence of misalignment or because sites evolve at very fast rates in some portions of a tree, a situation that occurs especially in analyses involving deep divergence times. One might reasonably speculate that random sites will only add noise to the estimation of a phylogeny. We show that in the case that a random sequence is added to a three-taxa alignment, it is more likely to be a neighbor of the sequence corresponding to the longest branch in the three-taxon tree. Surprisingly, when only about half of the sites show randomness, a long-branch-repels form of small sample bias occurs, and when a minority of sites show randomness this becomes a long-branch-attraction bias again. The most serious bias, one that does not vanish with increasing sequence length, occurs when more than one sequence is partially random. If there is a large amount of overlap in the random sites for two sequences, those two sequences will be attracted to each other; otherwise, they will repel each other. Random sequences or sites can, therefore, cause complicated biases in phylogenetic inference. We suggest performing analyses with and without potentially saturated sequences and/or misaligned sites, to check that these biases are not affecting the inferred branching pattern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16044245     DOI: 10.1007/s00239-004-0352-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Evol        ISSN: 0022-2844            Impact factor:   2.395


  14 in total

1.  The root of the tree of life in the light of the covarion model.

Authors:  P Lopez; P Forterre; H Philippe
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Long-branch attraction and the rDNA model of early eukaryotic evolution.

Authors:  J W Stiller; B D Hall
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 16.240

Review 3.  Ancient phylogenetic relationships.

Authors:  Simonetta Gribaldo; Hervé Philippe
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.570

4.  Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock--a simulation study.

Authors:  B R Holland; D Penny; M D Hendy
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  Dealing with saturation at the amino acid level: a case study based on anciently duplicated zebrafish genes.

Authors:  Yves Van de Peer; Tancred Frickey; John Taylor; Axel Meyer
Journal:  Gene       Date:  2002-08-07       Impact factor: 3.688

6.  On inconsistency of the neighbor-joining, least squares, and minimum evolution estimation when substitution processes are incorrectly modeled.

Authors:  Edward Susko; Yuji Inagaki; Andrew J Roger
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2004-05-21       Impact factor: 16.240

7.  Modeling compositional heterogeneity.

Authors:  Peter G Foster
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 15.683

8.  The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences.

Authors:  D T Jones; W R Taylor; J M Thornton
Journal:  Comput Appl Biosci       Date:  1992-06

9.  Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case.

Authors:  B S Gaut; P O Lewis
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates.

Authors:  M K Kuhner; J Felsenstein
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 16.240

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  The origin and diversification of eukaryotes: problems with molecular phylogenetics and molecular clock estimation.

Authors:  Andrew J Roger; Laura A Hug
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  A mixed branch length model of heterotachy improves phylogenetic accuracy.

Authors:  Bryan Kolaczkowski; Joseph W Thornton
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-03-03       Impact factor: 16.240

3.  Can quartet analyses combining maximum likelihood estimation and Hennigian logic overcome long branch attraction in phylogenomic sequence data?

Authors:  Patrick Kück; Mark Wilkinson; Christian Groß; Peter G Foster; Johann W Wägele
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Experimental design and statistical rigor in phylogenomics of horizontal and endosymbiotic gene transfer.

Authors:  John W Stiller
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 3.260

5.  The largest subunit of RNA polymerase II from the Glaucocystophyta: functional constraint and short-branch exclusion in deep eukaryotic phylogeny.

Authors:  John W Stiller; Leslie Harrell
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 3.260

6.  Utility of characters evolving at diverse rates of evolution to resolve quartet trees with unequal branch lengths: analytical predictions of long-branch effects.

Authors:  Zhuo Su; Jeffrey P Townsend
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 3.260

7.  Circumstances in which parsimony but not compatibility will be provably misleading.

Authors:  Robert W Scotland; Mike Steel
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 15.683

8.  A phylogeny-based benchmarking test for orthology inference reveals the limitations of function-based validation.

Authors:  Kalliopi Trachana; Kristoffer Forslund; Tomas Larsson; Sean Powell; Tobias Doerks; Christian von Mering; Peer Bork
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Can comprehensive background knowledge be incorporated into substitution models to improve phylogenetic analyses? A case study on major arthropod relationships.

Authors:  Björn M von Reumont; Karen Meusemann; Nikolaus U Szucsich; Emiliano Dell'Ampio; Vivek Gowri-Shankar; Daniela Bartel; Sabrina Simon; Harald O Letsch; Roman R Stocsits; Yun-xia Luan; Johann Wolfgang Wägele; Günther Pass; Heike Hadrys; Bernhard Misof
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  Phylogenetic relationships within the Opisthokonta based on phylogenomic analyses of conserved single-copy protein domains.

Authors:  Guifré Torruella; Romain Derelle; Jordi Paps; B Franz Lang; Andrew J Roger; Kamran Shalchian-Tabrizi; Iñaki Ruiz-Trillo
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 16.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.