Literature DB >> 25378436

Practical performance of tree comparison metrics.

Mary K Kuhner1, Jon Yamato2.   

Abstract

The phylogenetic literature contains numerous measures for assessing differences between two phylogenetic trees. Individual measures have been criticized on various grounds, but little is known about their comparative performance in typical applications. We evaluate the performance of nine tree distance measures on two tasks: 1) distinguishing trees separated by lesser versus greater numbers of recombinations, and 2) distinguishing trees inferred with lower versus higher quality data. We find that when the trees being compared are similar, measures that make use of branch lengths are superior, with the branch-length version of the Robinson-Foulds metric performing best. In contrast, for dissimilar trees topology-only measures are superior, with the Alignment metric of Nye et al. performing best. We also apply the measures to a mammalian dataset and observe that the best metric depends on whether branch-length information is of interest. We give practical recommendations for choosing a tree distance metric in different applications.
© The Author(s) 2014. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Phylogenetics; tree comparison; tree distance metrics

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25378436     DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu085

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


  20 in total

1.  Assessing Differences Between Ancestral Recombination Graphs.

Authors:  Mary K Kuhner; Jon Yamato
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2015-04-05       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Morphological Phylogenetics Evaluated Using Novel Evolutionary Simulations.

Authors:  Joseph N Keating; Robert S Sansom; Mark D Sutton; Christopher G Knight; Russell J Garwood
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 15.683

3.  A partial order and cluster-similarity metric on rooted phylogenetic trees.

Authors:  Michael Hendriksen; Andrew Francis
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.259

4.  Anomalous Phylogenetic Behavior of Ribosomal Proteins in Metagenome-Assembled Asgard Archaea.

Authors:  Sriram G Garg; Nils Kapust; Weili Lin; Michael Knopp; Fernando D K Tria; Shijulal Nelson-Sathi; Sven B Gould; Lu Fan; Ruixin Zhu; Chuanlun Zhang; William F Martin
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.416

5.  A Consensus Method for Ancestral Recombination Graphs.

Authors:  Mary K Kuhner; Jon Yamato
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Of Traits and Trees: Probabilistic Distances under Continuous Trait Models for Dissecting the Interplay among Phylogeny, Model, and Data.

Authors:  Richard H Adams; Heath Blackmon; Michael DeGiorgio
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 15.683

7.  Correcting for sequencing error in maximum likelihood phylogeny inference.

Authors:  Mary K Kuhner; James McGill
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.154

8.  Comparing species tree estimation with large anchored phylogenomic and small Sanger-sequenced molecular datasets: an empirical study on Malagasy pseudoxyrhophiine snakes.

Authors:  Sara Ruane; Christopher J Raxworthy; Alan R Lemmon; Emily Moriarty Lemmon; Frank T Burbrink
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Mapping Phylogenetic Trees to Reveal Distinct Patterns of Evolution.

Authors:  Michelle Kendall; Caroline Colijn
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Assessing parallel gene histories in viral genomes.

Authors:  Beatriz Mengual-Chuliá; Stéphanie Bedhomme; Guillaume Lafforgue; Santiago F Elena; Ignacio G Bravo
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 3.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.