The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Signal, Noise, and Reliability in Molecular Phylogenetic Analyses
Abstract
DNA sequences and other molecular data compared among organisms may contain phylogenetic signal, or they may be randomized with respect to phylogenetic history. Some method is needed to distinguish phylogenetic signal from random noise to avoid analysis of data that have been randomized with respect to the historical relationships of the taxa being compared. We analyzed 8,000 random data matrices consisting of 10-500 binary or four-state characters and 5-25 taxa to study several options for detecting signal in systematic data bases. Analysis of random data often yields a single most-parsimonious tree, especially if the number of characters examined is large and the number of taxa examined is small (both often true in molecular studies). The most-parsimonious tree inferred from random data may also be considerably shorter than the second-best alternative. The distribution of tree lengths of all tree topologies (or a random sample thereof) provides a sensitive measure of phylogenetic signal: data matrices with phylogenetic signal produce tree-length distributions that are strongly skewed to the left, whereas those composed of random noise are closer to symmetrical. In simulations of phylogeny with varying rates of mutation (up to levels that produce random variation among taxa), the skewness of tree-length distributions is closely related to the success of parsimony in finding the true phylogeny. Tables of critical values of a skewness test statistic, g1, are provided for binary and four-state characters for 10-500 characters and 5-25 taxa. These tables can be used in a rapid and efficient test for significant structure in data matrices for phylogenetic analysis.
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
Cited by
TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC SIGNAL IN COMPARATIVE DATA: BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE MORE LABILE
Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T., & Ives, A. R. (2003) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x · Cited by 4,678
Sunnucks, P., & Hales, D. F. (1996) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025612 · Cited by 1,121
Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods
Blomberg, S. P., & Garland, T. (2002) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x · Cited by 893
Phylogenetic Signal, Evolutionary Process, and Rate
Revell, L. J., Harmon, L. J., & Collar, D. C. (2008) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150802302427 · Cited by 879
Laudet, V (1997) · Journal of Molecular Endocrinology · doi:10.1677/jme.0.0190207 · Cited by 557
Metadata
- Authors
- Hillis, D. M., & Huelsenbeck, J. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Heredity
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 189-195
- ISSN
- 0022-1503 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7333
- OpenAlex
- W2270430976
- Cited by
- 1,287
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Signal, Noise, and Reliability in Molecular Phylogenetic Analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111190
- The paper
- Hillis, D. M., & Huelsenbeck, J. P. (1992). Signal, Noise, and Reliability in Molecular Phylogenetic Analyses. Journal of Heredity. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111190
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.