Abstract
Minimum evolution is the guiding principle of an important class of distance-based phylogeny reconstruction methods, including neighbor-joining (NJ), which is the most cited tree inference algorithm to date. The minimum evolution principle involves searching for the tree with minimum length, where the length is estimated using various least-squares criteria. Since evolutionary distances cannot be known precisely but only estimated, it is important to investigate the robustness of phylogenetic reconstruction to imprecise estimates for these distances. The safety radius is a measure of this robustness: it consists of the maximum relative deviation that the input distances can have from the correct distances, without compromising the reconstruction of the correct tree structure. Answering some open questions, we here derive the safety radius of two popular minimum evolution criteria: balanced minimum evolution (BME) and minimum evolution based on ordinary least squares (OLS + ME). Whereas BME has a radius of \(\frac{1}{2}\), which is the best achievable, OLS + ME has a radius tending to 0 as the number of taxa increases. This difference may explain the gap in reconstruction accuracy observed in practice between OLS + ME and BME (which forms the basis of popular programs such as NJ and FastME).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atteson, K., 1999. The performance of neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Algorithmica 25, 251–278.
Bandelt, H.J., Dress, A.W., 1992. Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1(3), 242–252.
Bordewich, M., Gascuel, O., Huber, K., Moulton, V., 2009. Consistency of topological moves based on the balanced minimum evolution principle of phylogenetic inference. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf. 6, 110–117.
Bulmer, M., 1991. Use of the method of generalized least squares in reconstructing phylogenies from sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 8(6), 868.
Buneman, P., 1971. The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In: Hodson, F. (Ed.), Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, pp. 387–395. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Edwards, A.W.F., 1964. Analysis of human evolution. In: Proceedings 11th International Congress of Genetics, vol. 3, pp. 923–933.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Edwards, A.W.F., 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 19(3 part 1), 233–257.
Desper, R., Gascuel, O., 2002. Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction algorithms based on the minimum-evolution principle. J. Comput. Biol. 9, 687–705.
Desper, R., Gascuel, O., 2004. Theoretical foundation of the balanced minimum evolution method of phylogenetic inference and its relationship to weighted least-squares tree fitting. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 587–598.
Desper, R., Gascuel, O., 2005. The minimum evolution distance-based approach to phylogenetic inference. In: Gascuel, O. (Ed.), Mathematics of Evolution & Phylogeny, pp. 1–32. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gascuel, O., 2000. On the optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis and the minimum-evolution criterion. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 401–405.
Gascuel, O., McKenzie, A., 2004. Performance analysis of hierarchical clustering algorithms. J. Classif. 21(1), 3–18.
Gascuel, O., Steel, M., 2006. Neighbor-joining revealed. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 1997–2000.
Gascuel, O., Bryant, D., Denis, F., 2001. Strengths and limitations of the minimum evolution principle. Syst. Biol. 50, 621–627.
Kidd, K.K., Sgaramella-Zonta, L.A., 1971. Phylogenetic analysis: concepts and methods. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 23, 235–252.
Kumar, S., 1996. A stepwise algorithm for finding minimum evolution trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 584–593.
Mihaescu, R., Pachter, L., 2008. Combinatorics of least squares trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13206–13211.
Nei, M., Kumar, S., 2000. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pauplin, Y., 2000. Direct calculation of a tree length using a distance matrix. J. Mol. Evol. 51, 41–47.
Rzhetsky, A., Nei, M., 1992. A simple method for estimating and testing minimum-evolution trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9, 945–967.
Rzhetsky, A., Nei, M., 1993. Theoretical foundation of the minimum-evolution method of phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 1073–1095.
Saitou, N., Imanishi, T., 1989. Relative efficiencies of the Fitch–Margoliash, maximum-parsimony, maximum-likelihood, minimum-evolution, and neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic tree construction in obtaining the correct tree. Mol. Biol. Evol. 6, 514–525.
Saitou, N., Nei, M., 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406–425.
Semple, C., Steel, M., 2004. Cyclic permutations and evolutionary trees. Adv. Appl. Math. 32, 669–680.
Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J., Waddell, P.J., Hillis, D.M., 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis, D., Moritz, C., Mable, B. (Eds.), Molecular Systematics, pp. 407–514. Sinauer, Sunderland.
Vinh, L.S., von Haeseler, A., 2005. Shortest triplet clustering: reconstructing large phylogenies using representative sets. BMC Bioinf. 6, 92.
Willson, S.J., 2005a. Consistent formulas for estimating the total lengths of trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 148(3), 214–239.
Willson, S.J., 2005b. Minimum evolution using ordinary least-squares is less robust than neighbor-joining. Bull. Math. Biol. 67(2), 261–279.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pardi, F., Guillemot, S. & Gascuel, O. Robustness of Phylogenetic Inference Based on Minimum Evolution. Bull. Math. Biol. 72, 1820–1839 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-010-9510-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-010-9510-y