Cited by 18,376Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsEvolution and Paleontology Studies

New Algorithms and Methods to Estimate Maximum-Likelihood Phylogenies: Assessing the Performance of PhyML 3.0

Open access
Guindon, Stéphane, Dufayard, Jean-François, Lefort, Vincent, Anisimova, Maria, Hordijk, Wim, Gascuel, Olivier·2010·Systematic Biology

Abstract

PhyML is a phylogeny software based on the maximum-likelihood principle. Early PhyML versions used a fast algorithm performing nearest neighbor interchanges to improve a reasonable starting tree topology. Since the original publication (Guindon S., Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52:696-704), PhyML has been widely used (>2500 citations in ISI Web of Science) because of its simplicity and a fair compromise between accuracy and speed. In the meantime, research around PhyML has continued, and this article describes the new algorithms and methods implemented in the program. First, we introduce a new algorithm to search the tree space with user-defined intensity using subtree pruning and regrafting topological moves. The parsimony criterion is used here to filter out the least promising topology modifications with respect to the likelihood function. The analysis of a large collection of real nucleotide and amino acid data sets of various sizes demonstrates the good performance of this method. Second, we describe a new test to assess the support of the data for internal branches of a phylogeny. This approach extends the recently proposed approximate likelihood-ratio test and relies on a nonparametric, Shimodaira-Hasegawa-like procedure. A detailed analysis of real alignments sheds light on the links between this new approach and the more classical nonparametric bootstrap method. Overall, our tests show that the last version (3.0) of PhyML is fast, accurate, stable, and ready to use. A Web server and binary files are available from http://www.atgc-montpellier.fr/phyml/.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sysbio/syq010

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • FastTree was found to be much faster than RAxML and PhyML but reported lower likelihood scores for data sets with both small and large numbers of sequences.

    “On the other hand, FastTree was found to be much faster than RAxML and PhyML but reported lower likelihood scores for data sets with both small and large numbers of sequences (Guindon et al. 2010; Price et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011).”
  • In prior studies, RAxML and PhyML showed largely similar performance in identifying trees of higher likelihood scores, whereas IQ-TREE exhibited improved efficiency compared with both RAxML and PhyML.

    “In these studies, RAxML and PhyML showed largely similar performance in identifying trees of higher likelihood scores (Guindon et al. 2010; Money and Whelan 2012), whereas IQ-TREE exhibited improved efficiency compared with both RAxML and PhyML (Nguyen et al. 2015; Chernomor et al. 2016).”
  • RAxML consistently outperformed PhyML in all data sets.

    “However, in contrast to previous observations (Guindon et al. 2010), we found that RAxML consistently outperformed PhyML in all data sets.”
  • Prior to this study, the four programs had only been evaluated using simulated data and empirical data sets with wide ranges of taxon numbers but relatively small numbers of genes, which might not well approximate today's state-of-the-art phylogenomic data matrices.

    “So far, these four programs have only been evaluated using simulated data (Guindon et al. 2010; Price et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011), and empirical data sets with wide ranges of taxon numbers (e.g., up to 237,882 taxa in Price et al. [2010]) but relatively small numbers of genes (from ∼10 [Price et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011; Chernomor et al. 2016] to ∼200 [Guindon et al. 2010; Money and Whelan 2012”
  • The difference between our finding that RAxML outperformed PhyML and previous observations might be due to the small number of alignments examined in the previous study and the numerous updates of both programs since then.

    “This difference might be due to the small number of alignments examined in the previous study (Guindon et al. 2010) and the numerous updates of both programs since then.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guindon, S., Dufayard, J.-F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., & Gascuel, O.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
Corresponding author
Gascuel, Olivier
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2010-03-29
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
307-321
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2111211467
Cited by
18,376
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1054 · 2025: 1310 · 2024: 1284 · 2023: 1304 · 2022: 1541 · 2021: 1787 · 2020: 1614 · 2019: 1428 · 2018: 1301 · 2017: 1148 · 2016: 1113 · 2015: 1006 · 2014: 1002 · 2013: 748 · 2012: 507
FWCI
190.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
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
PhyML, maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference, nonparametric bootstrap
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Classification, Phylogeny, Software, 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