Literature DB >> 17654365

Experimental design criteria in phylogenetics: where to add taxa.

Koen Geuten1, Tim Massingham, Paul Darius, Erik Smets, Nick Goldman.   

Abstract

Accurate phylogenetic inference is a topic of intensive research and debate and has been studied in response to many different factors: for example, differences in the method of reconstruction, the shape of the underlying tree, the substitution model, and varying quantities and types of data. Investigating whether the conditions used might lead to inaccurate inference has been attempted through elaborate data exploration but less attention has been given to creating a unified methodology to enable experimental designs in phylogenetic analysis to be improved and so avoid suboptimal conditions. Experimental design has been part of the field of statistics since the seminal work of Fisher in the early 20th century and a large body of literature exists on how to design optimum experiments. Here we investigate the use of the Fisher information matrix to decide between candidate positions for adding a taxon to a fixed topology, and introduce a parameter transformation that permits comparison of these different designs. This extension to Goldman (1998. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265: 1779-1786) thus allows investigation of "where to add taxa" in a phylogeny. We compare three different measures of the total information for selecting the position to add a taxon to a tree. Our methods are illustrated by investigating the behavior of the three criteria when adding a branch to model trees, and by applying the different criteria to two biological examples: a simplified taxon-sampling problem in the balsaminoid Ericales and the phylogeny of seed plants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17654365     DOI: 10.1080/10635150701499563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Syst Biol        ISSN: 1063-5157            Impact factor:   15.683


  9 in total

Review 1.  The impact of taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference: a review of two decades of controversy.

Authors:  Ahmed Ragab Nabhan; Indra Neil Sarkar
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 11.622

2.  Biologically inspired phylogenetic models strongly outperform the no common mechanism model.

Authors:  John P Huelsenbeck; Michael E Alfaro; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2011-01-20       Impact factor: 15.683

3.  Evolution of bacterial recombinase A (recA) in eukaryotes explained by addition of genomic data of key microbial lineages.

Authors:  Paulo G Hofstatter; Alexander K Tice; Seungho Kang; Matthew W Brown; Daniel J G Lahr
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Estimating Bayesian Phylogenetic Information Content.

Authors:  Paul O Lewis; Ming-Hui Chen; Lynn Kuo; Louise A Lewis; Karolina Fučíková; Suman Neupane; Yu-Bo Wang; Daoyuan Shi
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 15.683

5.  More on the Best Evolutionary Rate for Phylogenetic Analysis.

Authors:  Seraina Klopfstein; Tim Massingham; Nick Goldman
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 15.683

6.  Expression divergence of the AGL6 MADS domain transcription factor lineage after a core eudicot duplication suggests functional diversification.

Authors:  Tom Viaene; Dries Vekemans; Annette Becker; Siegbert Melzer; Koen Geuten
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 4.215

7.  Support for Lungfish as the Closest Relative of Tetrapods by Using Slowly Evolving Ray-Finned Fish as the Outgroup.

Authors:  Naoko Takezaki; Hidenori Nishihara
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.416

Review 8.  Molecular systematics: A synthesis of the common methods and the state of knowledge.

Authors:  Diego San Mauro; Ainhoa Agorreta
Journal:  Cell Mol Biol Lett       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 5.787

9.  Statistical approaches to use a model organism for regulatory sequences annotation of newly sequenced species.

Authors:  Pietro Liò; Claudia Angelini; Italia De Feis; Viet-Anh Nguyen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.