The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficiencies of Fast Algorithms of Phylogenetic Inference Under the Criteria of Maximum Parsimony, Minimum Evolution, and Maximum Likelihood When a Large Number of Sequences Are Used
Open accessAbstract
In phylogenetic inference by maximum-parsimony (MP), minimum-evolution (ME), and maximum-likelihood (ML) methods, it is customary to conduct extensive heuristic searches of MP, ME, and ML trees, examining a large number of different topologies. However, these extensive searches tend to give incorrect tree topologies. Here we show by extensive computer simulation that when the number of nucleotide sequences (m) is large and the number of nucleotides used (n) is relatively small, the simple MP or ML tree search algorithms such as the stepwise addition (SA) plus nearest neighbor interchange (NNI) search and the SA plus subtree pruning regrafting (SPR) search are as efficient as the extensive search algorithms such as the SA plus tree bisection-reconnection (TBR) search in inferring the true tree. In the case of ME methods, the simple neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm is as efficient as or more efficient than the extensive NJ+TBR search. We show that when ME methods are used, the simple p distance generally gives better results in phylogenetic inference than more complicated distance measures such as the Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano (HKY) distance, even when nucleotide substitution follows the HKY model. When ML methods are used, the simple Jukes-Cantor (JC) model of phylogenetic inference generally shows a better performance than the HKY model even if the likelihood value for the HKY model is much higher than that for the JC model. This indicates that at least in the present case, selecting of a substitution model by using the likelihood ratio test or the AIC index is not appropriate. When n is small relative to m and the extent of sequence divergence is high, the NJ method with p distance often shows a better performance than ML methods with the JC model. However, when the level of sequence divergence is low, this is not the case.
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
Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach.
Felsenstein, J. (1981) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01734359 · Cited by 14,571
Dating of the human–ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA.
Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H., & Yano, T.-A. (1985) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02101694 · Cited by 8,687
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS IN MOLECULAR EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS
Nei, M. (1996) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.30.1.371 · Cited by 349
Self-citation
Cited by
Ott, S. J., Musfeldt, M., Wenderoth, D. F., Hampe, J., Brant, O., Fölsch, U. R., Timmis, K. N., & Schreiber, S. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.025403 · Cited by 1,311
Person-to-Person Household and Nosocomial Transmission of Andes Hantavirus, Southern Chile, 2011
Martinez-Valdebenito, C., Calvo, M., Vial, C., Mansilla, R., Marco, C., Palma, R. E., Vial, P. A., Valdivieso, F., Mertz, G., & Ferrés, M. (2014) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid2010.140353 · Cited by 162
Miao, X., Wu, J., Chen, H., & Lu, G. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14091690 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Takahashi, K., & Nei, M.
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-08-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1251-1258
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W1971827346
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.84
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficiencies of Fast Algorithms of Phylogenetic Inference Under the Criteria of Maximum Parsimony, Minimum Evolution, and Maximum Likelihood When a Large Number of Sequences Are Used. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026408
- The paper
- Takahashi, K., & Nei, M. (2000). Efficiencies of Fast Algorithms of Phylogenetic Inference Under the Criteria of Maximum Parsimony, Minimum Evolution, and Maximum Likelihood When a Large Number of Sequences Are Used. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026408
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.