Cited by 107Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Paleontology StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Identifying and Removing Fast-Evolving Sites Using Compatibility Analysis: An Example from the Arthropoda

Pisani, Davide·2004·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Felsenstein (1978) first recognized that long branch attraction (LBA) can seriously affect the accuracy of phylogenetic reconstruction. Although Felsenstein specifically addressed this problem in the cases of parsimony and clique analyses, it is now known that LBA can affect any tree reconstruction method, including maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian approaches. However, LBA is only a problem for distance, ML, and Bayesian methods when the assumed substitution model is underparameterized, i.e., when it is unrealistically simple (Swofford et al., 2001; Lemmon and Moriatry, 2004). LBA should therefore be avoidable by analyzing the data using ML, Bayesian, or distance methods under the best-fitting substitution model (providing this is a good approximation of the true substitution model). However, ML and (although to a much lesser extent) Bayesian analyses are time consuming, whereas many widely used implementations of distance methods (for example Kumar et al., 2001) do not allow the specification of complex substitution models. Accordingly, estimating the relationships of fast-evolving species still represents one of the most serious problems of molecular phylogenetics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10635150490888877

Cites

0 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
Pisani, D.
Affiliations
Natural History Museum (GB)
Corresponding author
Pisani, Davide
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2004-12-01
Volume
53
Issue
6
Pages
978-989
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2137032400
Cited by
107
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.89
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
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
long-branch attraction, compatibility assessment, arthropods, substitution models, phylogenetic inference, molecular phylogeny, distance method, maximum likelihood estimation, Bayesian phylogenetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Arthropods, Bayes Theorem, Biological Evolution, Models, Theoretical, Phylogeny

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