Cited by 474Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Modeling compositional heterogeneity

Foster, Peter G·2004·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Compositional heterogeneity among lineages can compromise phylogenetic analyses, because models in common use assume compositionally homogeneous data. Models that can accommodate compositional heterogeneity with few extra parameters are described here, and used in two examples where the true tree is known with confidence. It is shown using likelihood ratio tests that adequate modeling of compositional heterogeneity can be achieved with few composition parameters, that the data may not need to be modelled with separate composition parameters for each branch in the tree. Tree searching and placement of composition vectors on the tree are done in a Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Assessment of fit of the model to the data is made in both maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian frameworks. In an ML framework, overall model fit is assessed using the Goldman-Cox test, and the fit of the composition implied by a (possibly heterogeneous) model to the composition of the data is assessed using a novel tree-and model-based composition fit test. In a Bayesian framework, overall model fit and composition fit are assessed using posterior predictive simulation. It is shown that when composition is not accommodated, then the model does not fit, and incorrect trees are found; but when composition is accommodated, the model then fits, and the known correct phylogenies are obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10635150490445779

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foster, P. G.
Affiliations
Natural History Museum (GB)
Corresponding author
Foster, Peter G
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
485-495
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2168573791
Cited by
474
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 19
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
compositional heterogeneity, phylogenetic models, likelihood ratio test, model fit assessment, posterior predictive simulation, Bayesian phylogenetics, Markov chain Monte Carlo, tree search, model misspecification
MeSH terms
Base Composition, Bayes Theorem, Classification, Computer Simulation, Markov Chains, Models, Genetic, Monte Carlo Method, Phylogeny, Likelihood Functions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review