Ratio of explanatory power (REP): A new measure of group support
|
|
- Dwain Norton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) Short communication Ratio of explanatory power (REP): A new measure of group support Taran Grant a, *, Arnold G. Kluge b a Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA b 3140 Dolph Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA Received 23 July 2006; revised 17 November 2006; accepted 29 November 2006 Available online 9 December Bremer support (BS; Bremer, 1988; Källersjö et al., 1992) is frequently employed as a measure of group support in parsimony-based phylogenetic analysis. For a given group present in the most-parsimonious tree, Bremer support is defined as S 0 S; where S denotes the length of the most-parsimonious tree (Kluge and Farris, 1969) and S 0 is the length of the mostparsimonious tree that lacks that group. In other words, BS measures the difference in the explanatory power of the two hypotheses (Kluge and Grant, 2007), and is therefore a measure of objective support (Grant and Kluge, 2003). (For simplicity, we refer only to comparisons of pairs of hypotheses, but the same arguments also apply when sets of optimal hypotheses are compared to sets of equally suboptimal hypotheses.) The interpretation of BS as indicating the amount of contradictory evidence required to refute the optimal hypothesis of group monophyly is simple and unproblematic. However, the fact that BS does not scale between 0 and 1 has been seen as a deficiency. For example, one of the advantages Goloboff and Farris (2001, S31) claimed for their Relative Fit Difference (RFD; relative Bremer support of Goloboff et al., 2003) over BS is that it varies between 0 and 1, and it has been employed in empirical studies (e.g., Sánchez-Villagra et al., 2006). Goloboff and Farris did not discuss their reasons for considering the 0 1 range to be an advantage, but the criticism generally seems to be that BS values are not directly comparable across datasets. For example, a BS value of 5 indicates the amount of contradictory evidence required to overturn * Corresponding author. Fax: addresses: grant@amnh.org (T. Grant), akluge@umich.edu (A.G. Kluge). the optimal hypothesis, but, as a report of objective support, it would be advantageous to distinguish between BS values of 5 given datasets of different sizes and tree lengths. Grant and Kluge (submitted for publication) identified a number of defects in the RFD, leaving open the problem of defining a measure of relative explanatory power that varies between 0 and 1. Instead of calculating support as the difference in the explanatory power of competing hypotheses, as done by BS, it may be calculated as the ratio of explanatory power (REP). Where the assumptions of probabilistic inference are met, this is given by the familiar likelihood ratio, which has long been considered an objective measure of support in statistics. Indeed, in many ways Grant and Kluge s (2003) explication of the logic of support in ideographic inference parallels Hacking s (1965) explication of the logic of support in statistical inference. Given that explanatory power in phylogenetics is operationalized as tree length (Kluge and Grant, 2006), the ratio of the tree lengths of competing hypotheses offers an analogous measure of objective support that varies between 0 and 1 and may be compared across datasets. Explanatory power is the same epistemological maxim for both REP and the likelihood ratio; however, REP appeals to severity of test whereas the likelihood ratio relies on inductive arguments (contra de Queiroz, 2004). Two considerations complicate the measurement of REP support. First, by convention, the likelihood ratio is calculated as a fraction with the better hypothesis as the numerator, and it is appropriate to do the same here. This gives S=S 0 : However, because the better explanation has the shorter tree length, this formulation would have the undesirable effect of scoring unsupported hypotheses as 1. This is remedied by taking the complement of the ratio. A simple /$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: /j.ympev
2 484 T. Grant, A.G. Kluge / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) measure of REP support for a group present in the mostparsimonious tree would then be given by 1 S=S 0 : Here, the maximum is attained only in the trivial case in which no transformations are required to explain the observed character-states ðs ¼ 0Þ or as S 0 approaches infinity, which is the second complication. S 0 cannot exceed G, the maximum number of steps required to explain aligned character-states (Farris, 1989), or, in the more general case in which no alignment is assumed, X, the number of steps required to explain each unaligned character-state (e.g., each unaligned nucleotide) as uniquely evolved. Consequently, the maximum value for real datasets would be considerably less than 1, and the theoretical maximum would vary across datasets. However, recognizing that S 6 S 0 6 X (for character-states aligned in static matrices replace X with G) allows an index of REP support that varies between 0 and 1 for all datasets to be defined. We define the REP support for a particular group present in the most-parsimonious tree as REP ¼ 1 ððx S 0 Þ=ðX SÞÞ ¼ ðs 0 SÞ=ðX SÞ: The numerator of the latter expression is the BS, so the REP support for a group is equal to its BS divided by the difference in length between the least-parsimonious tree (X or G) and the most-parsimonious tree (S). If S 0 ¼ S, then the REP support value is 0 (as is the BS). If S 0 ¼ X (or G for static matrices), then the REP support value is 1. For low BS values and high tree lengths, raw REP support values may be too small to be conveniently reported, so it may be preferable to use scientific notation or otherwise multiply values by some constant. Of course, there are other ways to scale BS. For example, considering that the BS for a given group cannot exceed its branch length in the most-parsimonious tree, L, an alternative would be ðs 0 SÞ=L: This would report the BS relative to the maximum possible for the group in question. A similar approach was taken by DeBry (2001) in his effort to derive a statistical interpretation of BS. However, although scaling BS relative to L may be appropriate for other problems, for our purposes it fails for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it does not rank hypotheses according to their relative explanatory power. For example, two groups on the same tree may have identical BS (and, therefore, identical relative explanatory power) but scale differently due to their different branch lengths. Additional complications obtain from the difficulty in defining L, which may differ across equally parsimonious trees and may vary for a single tree due to ambiguous optimizations, and it is unclear if L should be taken as the maximum branch length, minimum branch length, or number of unambiguous changes for a single tree or shared across trees. REP support is not afflicted by any of these problems; in particular, it succeeds in ranking hypotheses according to their explanatory power. To demonstrate the comparison of REP support across datasets, we calculated the values for three published datasets: Sparks and Smith s (2004a) cichlid fish dataset, Sparks and Smith s (2004b) rainbowfish dataset, and Sánchez-Villagra et al. s (2006) morphology-only talpid mole dataset (Table 1). Although the Sparks and Smith datasets were analyzed under direct optimization (e.g., Wheeler, 1996, 2003; see also Kluge and Grant, 2006) and therefore did not assume an alignment prior to analysis, those studies calculated BS values using the implied alignments, and we therefore calculated REP support using G instead of X. The BS and REP support values (multiplied by 1000 for convenience) for the cichlid dataset are shown on the tree in Fig. 1. BS and REP support values for all datasets are summarized in Table 2. BS and REP support values give the same ranking of groups within a dataset, but they may differ across datasets. Despite the different numbers of terminals and aligned characters, G, and optimal tree lengths of the two fish studies (Table 1), their BS values are approximately equivalent. For example, a BS of 5 is equal to a REP support of for both datasets. However, a BS of 5 for the morphology-only mole dataset is equal to a REP support value of , which is equivalent to a BS value of 79 for the rainbowfish dataset and is greater than the maximum observed BS for the cichlid dataset. Both BS and REP support provide a measure of the relative explanatory power of hypotheses and are heuristic sensu Grant and Kluge (2003). However, their interpretations differ somewhat, and we recommend reporting both values in empirical studies. BS measures the difference in explanatory power among groups within a dataset, which is heuristic in the sense of Grant and Kluge (2003) in that it indicates the absolute amount of evidence required to overturn the optimal hypothesis. By calculating support Table 1 Summary of three datasets Taxa Evidence No. terminals No. aligned characters G Tree length Source Cichlid fishes DNA sequences , Sparks and Smith, 2004a Rainbowfishes DNA sequences + morphology , Sparks and Smith, 2004b Talpid moles Morphology Sánchez-Villagra et al., 2006 G, the maximum number of steps required to explain the aligned character-states (Farris, 1989).
3 T. Grant, A.G. Kluge / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) Fig. 1. Strict consensus of 81 most-parsimonious trees from Sparks and Smith s (2004a) study of cichlid fishes showing Bremer support (above branches) and REP support (below branches) values. For convenience, REP support values are multiplied by 1000.
4 486 T. Grant, A.G. Kluge / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) Table 2 Bremer support (BS) values and the respective REP support values for three datasets (see Table 1 for details) BS REP: cichlid fishes REP: rainbowfishes REP: talpid moles 1 1: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Table 2 (continued) BS REP: cichlid fishes REP: rainbowfishes REP: talpid moles 64 8: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : For each dataset REP support values are given up to the maximum observed BS. as the ratio of explanatory power, thereby scaling the relative explanatory power between 0 and 1, REP support provides standardized values that allow support to be meaningfully compared across studies of different sets of terminals. The heurism of REP support as a means of comparing cladograms is readily appreciated by considering that, as a report on the relative explanatory power of competing hypotheses, REP support is also a report on the relative strength of refutation of those hypotheses, and evaluating strength of refutation is key in testing derivative hypotheses. For example, given competing biogeographic scenarios, each of which is corroborated by a phylogenetic study of different taxa, REP support provides a means of assessing the relative degree to which each dataset refutes the alternative scenarios. Similarly, REP support may be useful in constructing supertrees (Baum, 1992; Ragan, 1992), where overlapping hypotheses are differentially corroborated by different datasets and there is concern that the pseudocharacters in the group inclusion matrix (Farris, 1973) should be weighted in proportion to the support for the original groups (Bininda-Emonds and Sanderson, 2001). REP support may be similarly useful in testing adaptive scenarios, coevolutionary hypotheses, and any problem in which phylogenetic hypotheses derived from studies of different sets of taxa provide the basis for testing competing theories. We caution that we do not advocate interpreting REP support as an indicator of the reliability, probability, or accuracy of alternative hypotheses, but rather their relative degree of refutation, which is the primary consideration in a progressive research program (Lakatos, 1978).
5 T. Grant, A.G. Kluge / Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) Acknowledgments We are grateful to Leo Smith for sharing datasets and image files and to Ronald debry, Leo Smith, and Ward Wheeler for criticizing the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under Grant No. W911NF awarded to the AMNH. AGK was supported by the Cladistics Institute, Harbor Springs, MI. References Baum, B.R., Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining trees. Taxon 41, Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Sanderson, M.J., Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50, Bremer, K., The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42, de Queiroz, K., The measurement of test severity, significance tests for resolution, and a unified philosophy of phylogenetic inference. Zoologica Scripta 33, DeBry, R.W., Improving interpretation of the decay index for DNA sequence data. Systematic Biology 50, Farris, J.S., The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics 5, Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J.S., Methods of quick consensus estimation. Cladistics 17, S26 S34. Goloboff, P.A., Farris, J.S., Källersjö, M., Oxelman, B., Ramı rez, M.J., Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 19, Grant, T., Kluge, A.G., Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither. Cladistics 19, Hacking, I., The Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Källersjö, M., Farris, J.S., Kluge, A.G., Bult, C., Skewness and permutation. Cladistics 8, Kluge, A.G., Farris, J.S., Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Systemtic Zoology 18, Kluge, A.G., Grant, T., From conviction to anti-superfluity: old and new justifications for parsimony in phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 22, Lakatos, I., The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Ragan, M.A., Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1, Sánchez-Villagra, M.R., Horovitz, I., Motokawa, M., A comprehensive morphological analysis of talpid moles (Mammalia) phylogenetic relationships. Cladistics 22, Sparks, J.S., Smith, W.L., 2004a. Phylogeny and biogeography of cichlid fishes (Teleostei:Perciformes:Cichlidae). Cladistics 20, Sparks, J.S., Smith, W.L., 2004b. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Malagasy and Australasian rainbowfishes (Teleostei:Melanotaenioidei): Gondwanan vicariance and evolution in freshwater. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33, Wheeler, W.C., Optimization alignment: the end of multiple sequence alignment in phylogenetics? Cladistics 12, 1 9. Wheeler, W.C., Iterative pass optimization of sequence data. Cladistics 19,
Evaluating phylogenetic hypotheses
Evaluating phylogenetic hypotheses Methods for evaluating topologies Topological comparisons: e.g., parametric bootstrapping, constrained searches Methods for evaluating nodes Resampling techniques: bootstrapping,
More informationIntegrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2016 University of California, Berkeley. Parsimony & Likelihood [draft]
Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2016 University of California, Berkeley K.W. Will Parsimony & Likelihood [draft] 1. Hennig and Parsimony: Hennig was not concerned with parsimony
More informationPoints of View Matrix Representation with Parsimony, Taxonomic Congruence, and Total Evidence
Points of View Syst. Biol. 51(1):151 155, 2002 Matrix Representation with Parsimony, Taxonomic Congruence, and Total Evidence DAVIDE PISANI 1,2 AND MARK WILKINSON 2 1 Department of Earth Sciences, University
More informationIntegrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley
Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler Feb. 14, 2018. Phylogenetic trees VI: Dating in the 21st century: clocks, & calibrations;
More informationConsensus methods. Strict consensus methods
Consensus methods A consensus tree is a summary of the agreement among a set of fundamental trees There are many consensus methods that differ in: 1. the kind of agreement 2. the level of agreement Consensus
More information(Stevens 1991) 1. morphological characters should be assumed to be quantitative unless demonstrated otherwise
Bot 421/521 PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS I. Origins A. Hennig 1950 (German edition) Phylogenetic Systematics 1966 B. Zimmerman (Germany, 1930 s) C. Wagner (Michigan, 1920-2000) II. Characters and character states
More informationPhylogenetic analyses. Kirsi Kostamo
Phylogenetic analyses Kirsi Kostamo The aim: To construct a visual representation (a tree) to describe the assumed evolution occurring between and among different groups (individuals, populations, species,
More informationPhyQuart-A new algorithm to avoid systematic bias & phylogenetic incongruence
PhyQuart-A new algorithm to avoid systematic bias & phylogenetic incongruence Are directed quartets the key for more reliable supertrees? Patrick Kück Department of Life Science, Vertebrates Division,
More informationLecture 27. Phylogeny methods, part 7 (Bootstraps, etc.) p.1/30
Lecture 27. Phylogeny methods, part 7 (Bootstraps, etc.) Joe Felsenstein Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology Lecture 27. Phylogeny methods, part 7 (Bootstraps, etc.) p.1/30 A non-phylogeny
More informationDistinctions between optimal and expected support. Ward C. Wheeler
Cladistics Cladistics 26 (2010) 657 663 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00308.x Distinctions between optimal and expected support Ward C. Wheeler Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
More informationPOPULATION GENETICS Winter 2005 Lecture 17 Molecular phylogenetics
POPULATION GENETICS Winter 2005 Lecture 17 Molecular phylogenetics - in deriving a phylogeny our goal is simply to reconstruct the historical relationships between a group of taxa. - before we review the
More informationReconstructing the history of lineages
Reconstructing the history of lineages Class outline Systematics Phylogenetic systematics Phylogenetic trees and maps Class outline Definitions Systematics Phylogenetic systematics/cladistics Systematics
More informationAmira A. AL-Hosary PhD of infectious diseases Department of Animal Medicine (Infectious Diseases) Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Assiut
Amira A. AL-Hosary PhD of infectious diseases Department of Animal Medicine (Infectious Diseases) Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Assiut University-Egypt Phylogenetic analysis Phylogenetic Basics: Biological
More informationSystematics Lecture 3 Characters: Homology, Morphology
Systematics Lecture 3 Characters: Homology, Morphology I. Introduction Nearly all methods of phylogenetic analysis rely on characters as the source of data. A. Character variation is coded into a character-by-taxon
More informationThanks to Paul Lewis and Joe Felsenstein for the use of slides
Thanks to Paul Lewis and Joe Felsenstein for the use of slides Review Hennigian logic reconstructs the tree if we know polarity of characters and there is no homoplasy UPGMA infers a tree from a distance
More informationPhylogenetics: Parsimony
1 Phylogenetics: Parsimony COMP 571 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University he Problem 2 Input: Multiple alignment of a set S of sequences Output: ree leaf-labeled with S Assumptions Characters are mutually independent
More informationDr. Amira A. AL-Hosary
Phylogenetic analysis Amira A. AL-Hosary PhD of infectious diseases Department of Animal Medicine (Infectious Diseases) Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Assiut University-Egypt Phylogenetic Basics: Biological
More informationEffects of Gap Open and Gap Extension Penalties
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Faculty Publications 200-10-01 Effects of Gap Open and Gap Extension Penalties Hyrum Carroll hyrumcarroll@gmail.com Mark J. Clement clement@cs.byu.edu See
More informationThe Information Content of Trees and Their Matrix Representations
2004 POINTS OF VIEW 989 Syst. Biol. 53(6):989 1001, 2004 Copyright c Society of Systematic Biologists ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/10635150490522737 The Information Content of
More informationAlgorithmic Methods Well-defined methodology Tree reconstruction those that are well-defined enough to be carried out by a computer. Felsenstein 2004,
Tracing the Evolution of Numerical Phylogenetics: History, Philosophy, and Significance Adam W. Ferguson Phylogenetic Systematics 26 January 2009 Inferring Phylogenies Historical endeavor Darwin- 1837
More information"PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS: ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION" Integrative Biology 200B Spring 2009 University of California, Berkeley
"PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS: ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION" Integrative Biology 200B Spring 2009 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler Jan. 22, 2009. Trees I. Summary of previous lecture: Hennigian
More informationIntroduction to characters and parsimony analysis
Introduction to characters and parsimony analysis Genetic Relationships Genetic relationships exist between individuals within populations These include ancestordescendent relationships and more indirect
More informationParsimony via Consensus
Syst. Biol. 57(2):251 256, 2008 Copyright c Society of Systematic Biologists ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/10635150802040597 Parsimony via Consensus TREVOR C. BRUEN 1 AND DAVID
More information"PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS: ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION" Integrative Biology 200 Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley
"PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS: ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION" Integrative Biology 200 Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley D.D. Ackerly Feb. 26, 2018 Maximum Likelihood Principles, and Applications to
More informationQuestions we can ask. Recall. Accuracy and Precision. Systematics - Bio 615. Outline
Outline 1. Mechanistic comparison with Parsimony - branch lengths & parameters 2. Performance comparison with Parsimony - Desirable attributes of a method - The Felsenstein and Farris zones - Heterotachous
More informationESTIMATION OF CONSERVATISM OF CHARACTERS BY CONSTANCY WITHIN BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS
ESTIMATION OF CONSERVATISM OF CHARACTERS BY CONSTANCY WITHIN BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS JAMES S. FARRIS Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Accepted March 30, 1966 The concept of conservatism
More informationData exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither. and Arnold G. Kluge c, * Accepted 16 June 2003
Cladistics Cladistics 19 (2003) 379 418 www.elsevier.com/locate/yclad Data exploration in phylogenetic inference: scientific, heuristic, or neither Taran Grant a,b, * and Arnold G. Kluge c, * a Division
More informationA (short) introduction to phylogenetics
A (short) introduction to phylogenetics Thibaut Jombart, Marie-Pauline Beugin MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling Imperial College London Genetic data analysis with PR Statistics, Millport Field
More informationChapter 9 BAYESIAN SUPERTREES. Fredrik Ronquist, John P. Huelsenbeck, and Tom Britton
Chapter 9 BAYESIAN SUPERTREES Fredrik Ronquist, John P. Huelsenbeck, and Tom Britton Abstract: Keywords: In this chapter, we develop a Bayesian approach to supertree construction. Bayesian inference requires
More informationPhylogeny 9/8/2014. Evolutionary Relationships. Data Supporting Phylogeny. Chapter 26
Phylogeny Chapter 26 Taxonomy Taxonomy: ordered division of organisms into categories based on a set of characteristics used to assess similarities and differences Carolus Linnaeus developed binomial nomenclature,
More informationPhylogenies Scores for Exhaustive Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony Scores Searches
Int. J. Bioinformatics Research and Applications, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx Phylogenies Scores for Exhaustive Maximum Likelihood and s Searches Hyrum D. Carroll, Perry G. Ridge, Mark J. Clement, Quinn O. Snell
More informationWorkshop: Biosystematics
Workshop: Biosystematics by Julian Lee (revised by D. Krempels) Biosystematics (sometimes called simply "systematics") is that biological sub-discipline that is concerned with the theory and practice of
More informationPinvar approach. Remarks: invariable sites (evolve at relative rate 0) variable sites (evolves at relative rate r)
Pinvar approach Unlike the site-specific rates approach, this approach does not require you to assign sites to rate categories Assumes there are only two classes of sites: invariable sites (evolve at relative
More informationUoN, CAS, DBSC BIOL102 lecture notes by: Dr. Mustafa A. Mansi. The Phylogenetic Systematics (Phylogeny and Systematics)
- Phylogeny? - Systematics? The Phylogenetic Systematics (Phylogeny and Systematics) - Phylogenetic systematics? Connection between phylogeny and classification. - Phylogenetic systematics informs the
More informationChapter 19 Organizing Information About Species: Taxonomy and Cladistics
Chapter 19 Organizing Information About Species: Taxonomy and Cladistics An unexpected family tree. What are the evolutionary relationships among a human, a mushroom, and a tulip? Molecular systematics
More informationC3020 Molecular Evolution. Exercises #3: Phylogenetics
C3020 Molecular Evolution Exercises #3: Phylogenetics Consider the following sequences for five taxa 1-5 and the known outgroup O, which has the ancestral states (note that sequence 3 has changed from
More informationConstructing Evolutionary/Phylogenetic Trees
Constructing Evolutionary/Phylogenetic Trees 2 broad categories: Distance-based methods Ultrametric Additive: UPGMA Transformed Distance Neighbor-Joining Character-based Maximum Parsimony Maximum Likelihood
More informationCladistics. The deterministic effects of alignment bias in phylogenetic inference. Mark P. Simmons a, *, Kai F. Mu ller b and Colleen T.
Cladistics Cladistics 27 (2) 42 46./j.96-3.2.333.x The deterministic effects of alignment bias in phylogenetic inference Mark P. Simmons a, *, Kai F. Mu ller b and Colleen T. Webb a a Department of Biology,
More informationPhylogenetic hypotheses and the utility of multiple sequence alignment
Phylogenetic hypotheses and the utility of multiple sequence alignment Ward C. Wheeler 1 and Gonzalo Giribet 2 1 Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History Central Park West at
More informationThe Life System and Environmental & Evolutionary Biology II
The Life System and Environmental & Evolutionary Biology II EESC V2300y / ENVB W2002y Laboratory 1 (01/28/03) Systematics and Taxonomy 1 SYNOPSIS In this lab we will give an overview of the methodology
More informationInDel 3-5. InDel 8-9. InDel 3-5. InDel 8-9. InDel InDel 8-9
Lecture 5 Alignment I. Introduction. For sequence data, the process of generating an alignment establishes positional homologies; that is, alignment provides the identification of homologous phylogenetic
More informationThe practice of naming and classifying organisms is called taxonomy.
Chapter 18 Key Idea: Biologists use taxonomic systems to organize their knowledge of organisms. These systems attempt to provide consistent ways to name and categorize organisms. The practice of naming
More information8/23/2014. Phylogeny and the Tree of Life
Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Chapter 26 Objectives Explain the following characteristics of the Linnaean system of classification: a. binomial nomenclature b. hierarchical classification List the major
More informationPhylogenetics: Parsimony and Likelihood. COMP Spring 2016 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University
Phylogenetics: Parsimony and Likelihood COMP 571 - Spring 2016 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University The Problem Input: Multiple alignment of a set S of sequences Output: Tree T leaf-labeled with S Assumptions
More informationEMPIRICAL REALISM OF SIMULATED DATA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MODEL USED TO GENERATE IT: A REPLY TO GOLOBOFF ET AL.
[Palaeontology, Vol. 61, Part 4, 2018, pp. 631 635] DISCUSSION EMPIRICAL REALISM OF SIMULATED DATA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MODEL USED TO GENERATE IT: A REPLY TO GOLOBOFF ET AL. by JOSEPH E. O REILLY
More informationIntegrating Fossils into Phylogenies. Throughout the 20th century, the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary biology has been strained.
IB 200B Principals of Phylogenetic Systematics Spring 2011 Integrating Fossils into Phylogenies Throughout the 20th century, the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary biology has been strained.
More information08/21/2017 BLAST. Multiple Sequence Alignments: Clustal Omega
BLAST Multiple Sequence Alignments: Clustal Omega What does basic BLAST do (e.g. what is input sequence and how does BLAST look for matches?) Susan Parrish McDaniel College Multiple Sequence Alignments
More informationA Chain Is No Stronger than Its Weakest Link: Double Decay Analysis of Phylogenetic Hypotheses
Syst. Biol. 49(4):754 776, 2000 A Chain Is No Stronger than Its Weakest Link: Double Decay Analysis of Phylogenetic Hypotheses MARK WILKINSON, 1 JOSEPH L. THORLEY, 1,2 AND PAUL UPCHURCH 3 1 Department
More informationAppendix 5: Example Research Interests for Job Application
Appendix 5: Example Research Interests for Job Application SUMMARY OF RESEARCH INTERESTS Prosanta Chakrabarty My current research interests stem from my desire to understand fundamental aspects of biological
More informationDNA Phylogeny. Signals and Systems in Biology Kushal EE, IIT Delhi
DNA Phylogeny Signals and Systems in Biology Kushal Shah @ EE, IIT Delhi Phylogenetics Grouping and Division of organisms Keeps changing with time Splitting, hybridization and termination Cladistics :
More informationA data based parsimony method of cophylogenetic analysis
Blackwell Science, Ltd A data based parsimony method of cophylogenetic analysis KEVIN P. JOHNSON, DEVIN M. DROWN & DALE H. CLAYTON Accepted: 20 October 2000 Johnson, K. P., Drown, D. M. & Clayton, D. H.
More informationConstructing Evolutionary/Phylogenetic Trees
Constructing Evolutionary/Phylogenetic Trees 2 broad categories: istance-based methods Ultrametric Additive: UPGMA Transformed istance Neighbor-Joining Character-based Maximum Parsimony Maximum Likelihood
More informationPhylogenetic inference
Phylogenetic inference Bas E. Dutilh Systems Biology: Bioinformatic Data Analysis Utrecht University, March 7 th 016 After this lecture, you can discuss (dis-) advantages of different information types
More informationSophisticated falsification and research cycles: Consequences for differential character weighting in p h y I o g e n et ic system at ics
Pergamon Zoologica Scripta, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 349-360, 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd 01998 The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain PII: S0300-3256(97)00029-9
More informationPhylogenetic Analysis
Phylogenetic Analysis Aristotle Through classification, one might discover the essence and purpose of species. Nelson & Platnick (1981) Systematics and Biogeography Carl Linnaeus Swedish botanist (1700s)
More informationPhylogenetic Analysis
Phylogenetic Analysis Aristotle Through classification, one might discover the essence and purpose of species. Nelson & Platnick (1981) Systematics and Biogeography Carl Linnaeus Swedish botanist (1700s)
More informationPhylogenetic Analysis
Phylogenetic Analysis Aristotle Through classification, one might discover the essence and purpose of species. Nelson & Platnick (1981) Systematics and Biogeography Carl Linnaeus Swedish botanist (1700s)
More informationIntegrative Biology 200A "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2008
Integrative Biology 200A "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2008 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler March 18, 2008. Phylogenetic Trees I: Reconstruction; Models, Algorithms & Assumptions
More informationA phylogenomic toolbox for assembling the tree of life
A phylogenomic toolbox for assembling the tree of life or, The Phylota Project (http://www.phylota.org) UC Davis Mike Sanderson Amy Driskell U Pennsylvania Junhyong Kim Iowa State Oliver Eulenstein David
More informationClassification and Phylogeny
Classification and Phylogeny The diversity of life is great. To communicate about it, there must be a scheme for organization. There are many species that would be difficult to organize without a scheme
More informationSupplementary Materials for
advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1/8/e1500527/dc1 Supplementary Materials for A phylogenomic data-driven exploration of viral origins and evolution The PDF file includes: Arshan Nasir and Gustavo
More informationCHAPTER 26 PHYLOGENY AND THE TREE OF LIFE Connecting Classification to Phylogeny
CHAPTER 26 PHYLOGENY AND THE TREE OF LIFE Connecting Classification to Phylogeny To trace phylogeny or the evolutionary history of life, biologists use evidence from paleontology, molecular data, comparative
More informationTHEORY. Based on sequence Length According to the length of sequence being compared it is of following two types
Exp 11- THEORY Sequence Alignment is a process of aligning two sequences to achieve maximum levels of identity between them. This help to derive functional, structural and evolutionary relationships between
More informationClassification and Phylogeny
Classification and Phylogeny The diversity it of life is great. To communicate about it, there must be a scheme for organization. There are many species that would be difficult to organize without a scheme
More informationPhylogeny and systematics. Why are these disciplines important in evolutionary biology and how are they related to each other?
Phylogeny and systematics Why are these disciplines important in evolutionary biology and how are they related to each other? Phylogeny and systematics Phylogeny: the evolutionary history of a species
More informationChapter 19: Taxonomy, Systematics, and Phylogeny
Chapter 19: Taxonomy, Systematics, and Phylogeny AP Curriculum Alignment Chapter 19 expands on the topics of phylogenies and cladograms, which are important to Big Idea 1. In order for students to understand
More informationO 3 O 4 O 5. q 3. q 4. Transition
Hidden Markov Models Hidden Markov models (HMM) were developed in the early part of the 1970 s and at that time mostly applied in the area of computerized speech recognition. They are first described in
More informationCombining Data Sets with Different Phylogenetic Histories
Syst. Biol. 47(4):568 581, 1998 Combining Data Sets with Different Phylogenetic Histories JOHN J. WIENS Section of Amphibians and Reptiles, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
More informationX X (2) X Pr(X = x θ) (3)
Notes for 848 lecture 6: A ML basis for compatibility and parsimony Notation θ Θ (1) Θ is the space of all possible trees (and model parameters) θ is a point in the parameter space = a particular tree
More informationIs the equal branch length model a parsimony model?
Table 1: n approximation of the probability of data patterns on the tree shown in figure?? made by dropping terms that do not have the minimal exponent for p. Terms that were dropped are shown in red;
More informationLecture 6 Phylogenetic Inference
Lecture 6 Phylogenetic Inference From Darwin s notebook in 1837 Charles Darwin Willi Hennig From The Origin in 1859 Cladistics Phylogenetic inference Willi Hennig, Cladistics 1. Clade, Monophyletic group,
More informationPHYLOGENY & THE TREE OF LIFE
PHYLOGENY & THE TREE OF LIFE PREFACE In this powerpoint we learn how biologists distinguish and categorize the millions of species on earth. Early we looked at the process of evolution here we look at
More informationMarco G.P. van Veller, b Eric P. Hoberg, c and Daniel R. Brooks d
Cladistics Cladistics 19 (2003) 240 253 www.elsevier.com/locate/yclad A priori and a posteriori methods in comparative evolutionary studies of host parasite associations Ashley P.G. Dowling, a, * Marco
More informationPhylogenetic Tree Reconstruction
I519 Introduction to Bioinformatics, 2011 Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction Yuzhen Ye (yye@indiana.edu) School of Informatics & Computing, IUB Evolution theory Speciation Evolution of new organisms is driven
More informationHistorical Biogeography. Historical Biogeography. Systematics
Historical Biogeography I. Definitions II. Fossils: problems with fossil record why fossils are important III. Phylogeny IV. Phenetics VI. Phylogenetic Classification Disjunctions debunked: Examples VII.
More informationMolecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 177 191 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Spurious 99% bootstrap
More informationIntegrative Biology 200A "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2012 University of California, Berkeley
Integrative Biology 200A "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2012 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler Feb. 7, 2012. Morphological data IV -- ontogeny & structure of plants The last frontier
More informationNJMerge: A generic technique for scaling phylogeny estimation methods and its application to species trees
NJMerge: A generic technique for scaling phylogeny estimation methods and its application to species trees Erin Molloy and Tandy Warnow {emolloy2, warnow}@illinois.edu University of Illinois at Urbana
More informationNon-independence in Statistical Tests for Discrete Cross-species Data
J. theor. Biol. (1997) 188, 507514 Non-independence in Statistical Tests for Discrete Cross-species Data ALAN GRAFEN* AND MARK RIDLEY * St. John s College, Oxford OX1 3JP, and the Department of Zoology,
More informationConsensus Methods. * You are only responsible for the first two
Consensus Trees * consensus trees reconcile clades from different trees * consensus is a conservative estimate of phylogeny that emphasizes points of agreement * philosophy: agreement among data sets is
More informationSystematics - Bio 615
Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference 1. Introduction, history 2. Advantages over ML 3. Bayes Rule 4. The Priors 5. Marginal vs Joint estimation 6. MCMC Derek S. Sikes University of Alaska 7. Posteriors vs Bootstrap
More informationHillis DM Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:
Hillis DM. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383: 130-131. Triangles: parsimony Squares: neighbor-joining (under specified model) Circles: UPGMA Designing your phylogenetic analysis Choice of
More informationLecture V Phylogeny and Systematics Dr. Kopeny
Delivered 1/30 and 2/1 Lecture V Phylogeny and Systematics Dr. Kopeny Lecture V How to Determine Evolutionary Relationships: Concepts in Phylogeny and Systematics Textbook Reading: pp 425-433, 435-437
More informationAssessing Congruence Among Ultrametric Distance Matrices
Journal of Classification 26:103-117 (2009) DOI: 10.1007/s00357-009-9028-x Assessing Congruence Among Ultrametric Distance Matrices Véronique Campbell Université de Montréal, Canada Pierre Legendre Université
More informationreconciling trees Stefanie Hartmann postdoc, Todd Vision s lab University of North Carolina the data
reconciling trees Stefanie Hartmann postdoc, Todd Vision s lab University of North Carolina 1 the data alignments and phylogenies for ~27,000 gene families from 140 plant species www.phytome.org publicly
More informationTotal Evidence Or Taxonomic Congruence: Cladistics Or Consensus Classification
Cladistics 14, 151 158 (1998) WWW http://www.apnet.com Article i.d. cl970056 Total Evidence Or Taxonomic Congruence: Cladistics Or Consensus Classification Arnold G. Kluge Museum of Zoology, University
More informationLecture 4: Evolutionary Models and Substitution Matrices (PAM and BLOSUM)
Bioinformatics II Probability and Statistics Universität Zürich and ETH Zürich Spring Semester 2009 Lecture 4: Evolutionary Models and Substitution Matrices (PAM and BLOSUM) Dr Fraser Daly adapted from
More informationIncreasing Data Transparency and Estimating Phylogenetic Uncertainty in Supertrees: Approaches Using Nonparametric Bootstrapping
Syst. Biol. 55(4):662 676, 2006 Copyright c Society of Systematic Biologists ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/10635150600920693 Increasing Data Transparency and Estimating Phylogenetic
More information--Therefore, congruence among all postulated homologies provides a test of any single character in question [the central epistemological advance].
Integrative Biology 200A "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2008 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler Jan. 29, 2008. The Hennig Principle: Homology, Synapomorphy, Rooting issues The fundamental
More informationSome of these slides have been borrowed from Dr. Paul Lewis, Dr. Joe Felsenstein. Thanks!
Some of these slides have been borrowed from Dr. Paul Lewis, Dr. Joe Felsenstein. Thanks! Paul has many great tools for teaching phylogenetics at his web site: http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/plewis
More informationChapter 26: Phylogeny and the Tree of Life Phylogenies Show Evolutionary Relationships
Chapter 26: Phylogeny and the Tree of Life You Must Know The taxonomic categories and how they indicate relatedness. How systematics is used to develop phylogenetic trees. How to construct a phylogenetic
More informationConcepts and Methods in Molecular Divergence Time Estimation
Concepts and Methods in Molecular Divergence Time Estimation 26 November 2012 Prashant P. Sharma American Museum of Natural History Overview 1. Why do we date trees? 2. The molecular clock 3. Local clocks
More informationInferring phylogeny. Today s topics. Milestones of molecular evolution studies Contributions to molecular evolution
Today s topics Inferring phylogeny Introduction! Distance methods! Parsimony method!"#$%&'(!)* +,-.'/01!23454(6!7!2845*0&4'9#6!:&454(6 ;?@AB=C?DEF Overview of phylogenetic inferences Methodology Methods
More informationA Phylogenetic Network Construction due to Constrained Recombination
A Phylogenetic Network Construction due to Constrained Recombination Mohd. Abdul Hai Zahid Research Scholar Research Supervisors: Dr. R.C. Joshi Dr. Ankush Mittal Department of Electronics and Computer
More informationOutline. Classification of Living Things
Outline Classification of Living Things Chapter 20 Mader: Biology 8th Ed. Taxonomy Binomial System Species Identification Classification Categories Phylogenetic Trees Tracing Phylogeny Cladistic Systematics
More informationResponse to O Grady et al.: The potential and peril of the supertree approach
Response to O Grady et al.: The potential and peril of the supertree approach KIM VAN DER LINDE and DAVID HOULE Insect Syst.Evol. van der Linde, K. and Houle, D.: Response to O'Grady et al.: The potential
More informationImpact of errors on cladistic inference: simulation-based comparison between parsimony and three-taxon analysis
Impact of errors on cladistic inference: simulation-based comparison between parsimony and three-taxon analysis Valentin Rineau, René Zaragüeta I Bagils, Michel Laurin To cite this version: Valentin Rineau,
More informationSplit Support and Split Con ict Randomization Tests in Phylogenetic Inference
Syst. Biol. 47(4):673 695, 1998 Split Support and Split Con ict Randomization Tests in Phylogenetic Inference MARK WILKINSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UG, and Department
More informationLetter to the Editor. The Effect of Taxonomic Sampling on Accuracy of Phylogeny Estimation: Test Case of a Known Phylogeny Steven Poe 1
Letter to the Editor The Effect of Taxonomic Sampling on Accuracy of Phylogeny Estimation: Test Case of a Known Phylogeny Steven Poe 1 Department of Zoology and Texas Memorial Museum, University of Texas
More informationEvolution of Body Size in Bears. How to Build and Use a Phylogeny
Evolution of Body Size in Bears How to Build and Use a Phylogeny Lesson II Using a Phylogeny Objectives for Lesson II: 1. Overview of concepts 1. Simple ancestral state reconstruction on the bear phylogeny
More information