Advertisement

Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 354–361 | Cite as

Statistical properties of molecular tree construction methods under the neutral mutation model

  • Yoshio Tateno
  • Fumio Tajima
Article

Summary

The statistical properties of three molecular tree construction methods—the unweighted pair-group arithmetic average clustering (UPG), Farris, and modified Farris methods—are examined under the neutral mutation model of evolution. The methods are compared for accuracy in construction of the topology and estimation of the branch lengths, using statistics of these two aspects. The distribution of the statistic concerning topological construction is shown to be as important as its mean and variance for the comparison.

Of the three methods, the UPG method constructs the tree topology with the least variation. The modified Farris method, however, gives the best performance when the two aspects are considered simultaneously. It is also shown that a topology based on two genes is much more accurate than that based on one gene.

There is a tendency to accept published molecular trees, but uncritical acceptance may lead one to spurious conclusions. It should always be kept in mind that a tree is a statistical result that is affected strongly by the stochastic error of nucleotide substitution and the error intrinsic to the tree construction method itself.

Key words

Molecular evolution Molecular tree Computer simulation Unweighted pair-group arithmetic average clustering method Farris method Modified Farris method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Daniels GR, Deininger PL (1985) Repeated sequence families derived from mammalian tRNA genes. Nature 317:819–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dayhoff MO (ed) (1972) Atlas of protein sequence and structure. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Dekio S, Yamasaki R, Jidoi J, Hori H, Osawa S (1984) Secondary structure and phylogeny ofStaphylococcus andMicrococcus 5S rRNAs. J Bacteriol 159:233–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Faith DP (1985) Distance methods and approximation of mostparsimonious trees. Syst Zool 34:312–325Google Scholar
  5. Farris JS (1972) Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am Nat 106:645–668Google Scholar
  6. Gojobori T, Nei M (1984) Concerted evolution of the immunoglobulin VH gene family. Mol Biol Evol 1:195–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hasegawa M, Yano T (1984) Phylogeny and classification ofHominoidea as inferred from DNA sequence data. Proc Japan Acad 60:389–392Google Scholar
  8. Hori H, Osawa S (1979) Evolutionary change in 5S RNA secondary structure and a phylogenetic tree of 54 5S RNA species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:381–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jukes TH, Cantor CH (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp 21–123Google Scholar
  10. Kimura M (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624–626PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  12. Küntzel H, Köchel HG (1981) Evolution of rRNA and origin of mitochondria. Nature 293:751–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Miyata T, Yasunaga T, Nishida T (1980) Nucleotide sequence divergence and functional constraint in mRNA evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:7328–7332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nei M (1975) Molecular population genetics and evolution. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Nei M, Stephens JC, Saitou N (1985) Methods for computing the standard errors of branching points in an evolutionary tree and their application to molecular data from humans and apes. Mol Biol Evol 2:66–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson DF, Foulds LR (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci 53:131–147Google Scholar
  17. Schwartz RM, Dayhoff MO (1978) Origins of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts. Science 199:359–403Google Scholar
  18. Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE (1984) The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA hybridization. J Mol Evol 20:2–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Sokal RR, Sneath PHA (1963) Principles of numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. Tajima F (1983) Evolutionary relationship of DNA sequences in finite populations. Genetics 105:437–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tateno Y (1985) Theoretical aspects of molecular tree estimation. In: Ohta T, Aoki K (eds) Population genetics and molecular evolution. Japan Sci Soc Press, Tokyo/Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 293–312Google Scholar
  22. Tateno Y, Nei M, Tajima F (1983) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data, I. Distantly related species. J Mol Evol 18:387–404Google Scholar
  23. Templeton AR (1983) Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of human and the apes. Evolution 37:221–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshio Tateno
    • 1
  • Fumio Tajima
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN)Wako, SaitamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of BiologyKyushu UniversityHakozaki, FukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations