Statistical properties of molecular tree construction methods under the neutral mutation model
- 30 Downloads
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 wordsMolecular evolution Molecular tree Computer simulation Unweighted pair-group arithmetic average clustering method Farris method Modified Farris method
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dayhoff MO (ed) (1972) Atlas of protein sequence and structure. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Faith DP (1985) Distance methods and approximation of mostparsimonious trees. Syst Zool 34:312–325Google Scholar
- Farris JS (1972) Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am Nat 106:645–668Google Scholar
- Hasegawa M, Yano T (1984) Phylogeny and classification ofHominoidea as inferred from DNA sequence data. Proc Japan Acad 60:389–392Google Scholar
- Jukes TH, Cantor CH (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp 21–123Google Scholar
- Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
- Nei M (1975) Molecular population genetics and evolution. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Robinson DF, Foulds LR (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci 53:131–147Google Scholar
- Schwartz RM, Dayhoff MO (1978) Origins of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts. Science 199:359–403Google Scholar
- Sokal RR, Sneath PHA (1963) Principles of numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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