The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics
Open accessAbstract
Background: Probabilistic methods have progressively supplanted the Maximum Parsimony (MP) method for inferring phylogenetic trees. One of the major reasons for this shift was that MP is much more sensitive to the Long Branch Attraction (LBA) artefact than is Maximum Likelihood (ML). However, recent work by Kolaczkowski and Thornton suggested, on the basis of simulations, that MP is less sensitive than ML to tree reconstruction artefacts generated by heterotachy, a phenomenon that corresponds to shifts in site-specific evolutionary rates over time. These results led these authors to recommend that the results of ML and MP analyses should be both reported and interpreted with the same caution. This specific conclusion revived the debate on the choice of the most accurate phylogenetic method for analysing real data in which various types of heterogeneities occur. However, variation of evolutionary rates across species was not explicitly incorporated in the original study of Kolaczkowski and Thornton, and in most of the subsequent heterotachous simulations published to date, where all terminal branch lengths were kept equal, an assumption that is biologically unrealistic. Results: In this report, we performed more realistic simulations to evaluate the relative performance of MP and ML methods when two kinds of heterogeneities are considered: (i) within-site rate variation (heterotachy), and (ii) rate variation across lineages. Using a similar protocol as Kolaczkowski and Thornton to generate heterotachous datasets, we found that heterotachy, which constitutes a serious violation of existing models, decreases the accuracy of ML whatever the level of rate variation across lineages. In contrast, the accuracy of MP can either increase or decrease when the level of heterotachy increases, depending on the relative branch lengths. This result demonstrates that MP is not insensitive to heterotachy, contrary to the report of Kolaczkowski and Thornton. Finally, in the case of LBA (i.e. when two non-sister lineages evolved faster than the others), ML outperforms MP over a wide range of conditions, except for unrealistic levels of heterotachy. Conclusion: For realistic combinations of both heterotachy and variation of evolutionary rates across lineages, ML is always more accurate than MP. Therefore, ML should be preferred over MP for analysing real data, all the more so since parametric methods also allow one to handle other types of biological heterogeneities much better, such as among sites rate variation. The confounding effects of heterotachy on tree reconstruction methods do exist, but can be eschewed by the development of mixture models in a probabilistic framework, as proposed by Kolaczkowski and Thornton themselves.
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
Kimura, M. (1980) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01731581 · Cited by 29,778
A review of long-branch attraction
Bergsten, J. (2005) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x · Cited by 1,162
Philippe* and, H., & Germot, A. (2000) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026362 · Cited by 154
Cited by
Terrace Aware Data Structure for Phylogenomic Inference from Supermatrices
Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., & Minh, B. Q. (2016) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syw037 · Cited by 2,252
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
Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses
(2008) · Journal of Systematics and Evolution · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1002.2008.08016 · Cited by 553
Revisiting metazoan phylogeny with genomic sampling of all phyla
Laumer, C. E., Fernández, R., Lemer, S., Combosch, D., Kocot, K. M., Riesgo, A., Andrade, S. C. S., Sterrer, W., Sørensen, M. V., & Giribet, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.0831 · Cited by 360
Detecting and Overcoming Systematic Errors in Genome-Scale Phylogenies
Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N., Brinkmann, H., Roure, B., Lartillot, N., Lang, B. F., & Philippe, H. (2007) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150701397643 · Cited by 323
Self-citationRoger, A. J., & Hug, L. A. (2006) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1845 · Cited by 180
Ševčíková, T., Horák, A., Klimeš, V., Zbránková, V., Demir-Hilton, E., Sudek, S., Jenkins, J., Schmutz, J., Přibyl, P., Fousek, J., et al. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep10134 · Cited by 125
Natural selection and phylogenetic analysis
Edwards, S. V. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0904103106 · Cited by 79
Analytical Biases Associated with GC-Content in Molecular Evolution
Romiguier, J., & Roux, C. (2017) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2017.00016 · Cited by 87
The Evolutionary Origins of Extreme Halophilic Archaeal Lineages
Feng, Y., Neri, U., Gosselin, S., Louyakis, A. S., Papke, R. T., Gophna, U., & Gogarten, J. P. (2021) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evab166 · Cited by 37
Near intron pairs and the metazoan tree
Lehmann, J., Stadler, P. F., & Krauss, V. (2013) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2012.11.012 · Cited by 11
Klirs, Y., Novosolov, M., Gissi, C., Garić, R., Pupko, T., Stach, T., & Huchon, D. (2024) · Genome Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/gbe/evae181 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Philippe, H., Zhou, Y., Brinkmann, H., Rodrigue, N., & Delsuc, F.
- Venue
- BMC Evolutionary Biology
- Published
- 2005-10-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-50
- ISSN
- 1471-2148 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163373465
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.