The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bayes or Bootstrap? A Simulation Study Comparing the Performance of Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo Sampling and Bootstrapping in Assessing Phylogenetic Confidence
Open accessAbstract
Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling has become increasingly popular in phylogenetics as a method for both estimating the maximum likelihood topology and for assessing nodal confidence. Despite the growing use of posterior probabilities, the relationship between the Bayesian measure of confidence and the most commonly used confidence measure in phylogenetics, the nonparametric bootstrap proportion, is poorly understood. We used computer simulation to investigate the behavior of three phylogenetic confidence methods: Bayesian posterior probabilities calculated via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling (BMCMC-PP), maximum likelihood bootstrap proportion (ML-BP), and maximum parsimony bootstrap proportion (MP-BP). We simulated the evolution of DNA sequence on 17-taxon topologies under 18 evolutionary scenarios and examined the performance of these methods in assigning confidence to correct monophyletic and incorrect monophyletic groups, and we examined the effects of increasing character number on support value. BMCMC-PP and ML-BP were often strongly correlated with one another but could provide substantially different estimates of support on short internodes. In contrast, BMCMC-PP correlated poorly with MP-BP across most of the simulation conditions that we examined. For a given threshold value, more correct monophyletic groups were supported by BMCMC-PP than by either ML-BP or MP-BP. When threshold values were chosen that fixed the rate of accepting incorrect monophyletic relationship as true at 5%, all three methods recovered most of the correct relationships on the simulated topologies, although BMCMC-PP and ML-BP performed better than MP-BP. BMCMC-PP was usually a less biased predictor of phylogenetic accuracy than either bootstrapping method. BMCMC-PP provided high support values for correct topological bipartitions with fewer characters than was needed for nonparametric bootstrap.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x · Cited by 44,647
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. (2001) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 · Cited by 21,937
Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife
Efron, B. (1979) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 · Cited by 17,602
PAUP^* : Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and other methods) 4.0b8
Swofford, D. L. (2001) · Cited by 12,789
MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. (2001) · Bioinformatics · Cited by 4,892
An Empirical Test of Bootstrapping as a Method for Assessing Confidence in Phylogenetic Analysis
Hillis, D. M., & Bull, J. J. (1993) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.2307/2992540 · Cited by 3,423
Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny and Its Impact on Evolutionary Biology
Huelsenbeck, J. P., Ronquist, F., Nielsen, R., & Bollback, J. P. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1065889 · Cited by 2,737
Markov Chasin Monte Carlo Algorithms for the Bayesian Analysis of Phylogenetic Trees
Larget, B., & Simon, D. L. (1999) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026160 · Cited by 1,617
Rambaut, A., & Grass, N. C. (1997) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/13.3.235 · Cited by 1,574
Cited by
Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative
Anisimova, M., & Gascuel, O. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600755453 · Cited by 2,693
A review of long-branch attraction
Bergsten, J. (2005) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x · Cited by 1,162
LIVEZEY, B. C., & ZUSI, R. L. (2007) · Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00293.x · Cited by 574
Correlating viral phenotypes with phylogeny: Accounting for phylogenetic uncertainty
Parker, J., Rambaut, A., & Pybus, O. G. (2008) · Infection, Genetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2007.08.001 · Cited by 444
Wagner, C. E., Keller, I., Wittwer, S., Selz, O. M., Mwaiko, S., Greuter, L., Sivasundar, A., & Seehausen, O. (2013) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12023 · Cited by 441
Model selection may not be a mandatory step for phylogeny reconstruction
Abadi, S., Azouri, D., Pupko, T., & Mayrose, I. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08822-w · Cited by 406
How Meaningful Are Bayesian Support Values?
Simmons, M. P., Pickett, K. M., & Miya, M. (2004) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msh014 · Cited by 373
The importance of proper model assumption in bayesian phylogenetics.
Lemmon, A. R., & Moriarty, E. C. (2004) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150490423520 · Cited by 356
Pease, J. B., Brown, J. W., Walker, J. F., Hinchliff, C. E., & Smith, S. A. (2018) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1016 · Cited by 341
Poux, C., Madsen, O., Marquard, E., Vieites, D. R., de Jong, W. W., & Vences, M. (2005) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150500234534 · Cited by 339
Branch-length prior influences Bayesian posterior probability of phylogeny.
Yang, Z., & Rannala, B. (2005) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150590945313 · Cited by 228
Molecular phylogeny and evolution of prosimians based on complete sequences of mitochondrial DNAs.
Matsui, A., Rakotondraparany, F., Munechika, I., Hasegawa, M., & Horai, S. (2009) · Gene · doi:10.1016/j.gene.2008.08.024 · Cited by 121
Bayha, K. M., Dawson, M. N., Collins, A. G., Barbeitos, M. S., & Haddock, S. H. D. (2010) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/icq074 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Alfaro, M. E.
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-02-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-266
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2162421185
- Cited by
- 1,121
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 22.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
