Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 175–186 | Cite as

The alignment of sets of sequences and the construction of phyletic trees: An integrated method

  • P. Hogeweg
  • B. Hesper


In this paper we argue that the alignment of sets of sequences and the construction of phyletic trees cannot be treated separately. The concept of ‘good alignment’ is meaningless without reference to a phyletic tree, and the construction of phyletic trees presupposes alignment of the sequences.

We propose an integrated method that generates both an alignment of a set of sequences and a phyletic tree. In this method a putative tree is used to align the sequences and the alignment obtained is used to adjust the tree; this process is iterated. As a demonstration we apply the method to the analysis of the evolution of 5S rRNA sequences in prokaryotes.

Key words

Sequence alignment Phyletic trees Matrix methods Internode sequences Homology assessment Tree representation Prokaryotic 5S rRNA evolution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blanken RL, Klotz LC, Hinnebusch AG (1982) Computer comparison of new and existing criteria for constructing evolutionary trees from sequence data. J Mol Evol 19:9–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chou FE, Fasman GD (1978) Prediction of secondary structure of proteins from their amino acid sequence. Adv Enzyol. 47:145–148Google Scholar
  3. Cornish-Bowden A (1983) Phenetic methods of classification use information discarded by minimum length methods. J Theor Biol 101:317–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dayhoff MO (1976) Atlas of protein structure, vol 5, suppl 2. National Biochemical Research Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitch WM, Yasunobu KT (1974) Phylogenies from amino acid sequences aligned with gaps: the problem of gap weighting. J Mol Evol 5:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox GE, Woese CR (1975) 5S RNA secondary structure. Nature 256:505–507Google Scholar
  7. Fox GE, Stackebrandt RB, Hespell RB, Gibson J, Maniloff J, Dyer TA, Wolfe RS, Balch WE, Tanner RS, Magrum LJ, Zablen LB Blakemore R, Gupta R, Bonen L, Lewis BJ, Stahl DA, Luehrsen KR, Chen KN, Woese CR (1980) The phylogeny of prokaryotes. Science 209:457–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogeweg P (1976a) Iterative character weighting in numerical taxonomy. Comput Biol Med 6:166–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hogeweg P (1976b) Topics in biological pattern analysis. Thesis, RU UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Hogeweg P, Hesper B (1972) BIOPAT, program system for bioinformatic pattern analysis. Bioinformatica, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogeweg P, Hesper B (1981) Oligothetic characterisation of clusters. Pattern Recognition 14:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 16:381–385Google Scholar
  13. Klotz LC, Blanken RL (1981) A practical method for calculating evolutionary trees from sequence data. J Theor Biol 91:216–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klotz LC, Komar N, Blanken RL, Mitchell RM (1979) Calculation of evolutionary trees from sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:4516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuntzel H, Heidrich M, Piechulla B (1981) Phylogenetic tree derived from bacterial, cytosol and organelle 5 S rRNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 9:1451–1461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Leenhouts PW (1968) A guide to herbarium taxonomy. IAPT, Utrecht (Regnum vegetabile, vol 58)Google Scholar
  17. McLachlan AD (1971) Tests for comparing related amino acid sequences. Cytochrome c and Cytochrome c551. J Mol Biol 61:409–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McNeill J (1978) Purposeful phenetics. Syst Zool 28:465–482Google Scholar
  19. Needleman SB, Wunsch CD (1970) A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequences of two proteins. J Mol Biol 48:443–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nei M, Tajima F, Tateno Y (1983) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data II. Gene frequency data. J Mol Evol 19:153–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sankoff RJ, Cedergren RJ, McKay W (1982) A strategy for sequence phylogeny research. Nucleic Acids Res 10:421–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwartz RM, Dayhoff MO (1978) Origins of Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, Mitochondria and Chloroplasts: a perspective is derived from protein and nucleic acid sequence data. Science 199:395–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sellars PH (1974) On the theory and computation of evolutionary distances. SIAM J Appl Math 26:787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith TF, Waterman MS, Fitch WM (1981) Comparative biosequence metrics, J Mol Evol 18:38–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sneath HA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy. WH Freeman, San Francisco, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Tateno Y, Nei M, Tajima F (1982) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data I. Distantly related species. J Mol Evol 18:387–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Waterman MS, Smith TF, Beyer WA (1976) Some biological sequence metrics. Adv Math 20:267–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Hogeweg
    • 1
  • B. Hesper
    • 1
  1. 1.BioinformaticaUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations