Literature DB >> 28564306

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATED PHYLOGENIES: EFFECTS OF TREE TOPOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY MODEL.

F James Rohlf1, W S Chang1, R R Sokal1, Junhyong Kim1.   

Abstract

A simulation study was carried out to investigate the relative importance of tree topology (both balance and stemminess), evolutionary rates (constant, varying among characters, and varying among lineages), and evolutionary models in determining the accuracy with which phylogenetic trees can be estimated. The three evolutionary context models were phyletic (characters can change at each simulated time step), speciational (changes are possible only at the time of speciation into two daughter lineages), and punctuational (changes occur at the time of speciation but only in one of the daughter lineages). UPGMA clustering and maximum parsimony ("Wagner trees") methods for estimating phylogenies were compared. All trees were based on eight recent OTUs. The three evolutionary context models were found to have the largest influence on accuracy of estimates by both methods. The next most important effect was that of the stemminess × context interaction. Maximum parsimony and UPGMA performed worst under the punctuational models. Under the phyletic model, trees with high stemminess values could be estimated more accurately and balanced trees were slightly easier to estimate than unbalanced ones. Overall, maximum parsimony yielded more accurate trees than UPGMA-but that was expected for these simulations since many more characters than OTUs were used. Our results suggest that the great majority of estimated phylogenetic trees are likely to be quite inaccurate; they underscore the inappropriateness of characterizing current phylogenetic methods as being for reconstruction rather than for estimation. © 1990 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Year:  1990        PMID: 28564306     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb03855.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  10 in total

1.  Did Adult Diurnal Activity Influence the Evolution of Wing Morphology in Opoptera Butterflies?

Authors:  C M Penz; K B Heine
Journal:  Neotrop Entomol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 1.434

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.  Structure and organization of rhodophyte and chromophyte plastid genomes: implications for the ancestry of plastids.

Authors:  M S Shivji; N Li; R A Cattolico
Journal:  Mol Gen Genet       Date:  1992-03

4.  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

5.  A comparison of the effects of random and selective mass extinctions on erosion of evolutionary history in communities of digital organisms.

Authors:  Gabriel Yedid; Jason Stredwick; Charles A Ofria; Paul-Michael Agapow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  BIO::Phylo-phyloinformatic analysis using perl.

Authors:  Rutger A Vos; Jason Caravas; Klaas Hartmann; Mark A Jensen; Chase Miller
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 3.307

7.  iteRates: An R Package for Implementing a Parametric Rate Comparison on Phylogenetic Trees.

Authors:  James A Fordyce; Premal Shah; Benjamin M Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Evol Bioinform Online       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 1.625

8.  When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology?

Authors:  David W Bapst
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The impact of outgroup choice and missing data on major seed plant phylogenetics using genome-wide EST data.

Authors:  Jose Eduardo de la Torre-Bárcena; Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis; Ernest K Lee; Dennis Wm Stevenson; Eric D Brenner; Manpreet S Katari; Gloria M Coruzzi; Rob DeSalle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The Impact of Reconstruction Methods, Phylogenetic Uncertainty and Branch Lengths on Inference of Chromosome Number Evolution in American Daisies (Melampodium, Asteraceae).

Authors:  Jamie McCann; Gerald M Schneeweiss; Tod F Stuessy; Jose L Villaseñor; Hanna Weiss-Schneeweiss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.