Advertisement

Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 526–537 | Cite as

Effectiveness of measures requiring and not requiring prior sequence alignment for estimating the dissimilarity of natural sequences

  • B. Edwin Blaisdell
Article

Summary

Various measures of sequence dissimilarity have been evaluated by how well the additive least squares estimation of edges (branch lengths) of an unrooted evolutionary tree fit the observed pairwise dissimilarity measures and by how consistent the trees are for different data sets derived from the same set of sequences. This evaluation provided sensitive discrimination among dissimilarity measures and among possible trees. Dissimilarity measures not requiring prior sequence alignment did about as well as did the traditional mismatch counts requiring prior sequence alignment. Application of Jukes-Cantor correction to singlet mismatch counts worsened the results. Measures not requiring alignment had the advantage of being applicable to sequences too different to be critically alignable. Two different measures of pairwise dissimilarity not requiring alignment have been used: (1) multiplet distribution distance (MDD), the square of the Euclidean distance between vectors of the fractions of base singlets (or doublets, or triplets, or…) in the respective sequences, and (2) complements of long words (CLW), the count of bases not occurring in significantly long common words. MDD was applicable to sequences more different than was CLW (noncoding), but the latter often gave better results where both measures were available (coding). MDD results were improved by using longer multiplets and, if the sequences were coding, by using the larger amino acid and codon alphabets rather than the nucleotide alphabet. The additive least squares method could be used to provide a reasonable consensus of different trees for the same set of species (or related genes).

Key words

Evolutionary trees Additive least squares DNA Greatly divergent sequences Consensus trees 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Astolfi P, Kidd KK, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1981) A comparison of methods for reconstructing evolutionary trees. Syst Zool 30:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaisdell BE (1983) A prevalent persistent global nonrandomness that distinguishes coding and noncoding eucaryotic nuclear DNA sequences. J Mol Evol 19:122–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaisdell BE (1986) A measure of the similarity of sets of sequences not requiring sequence alignment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:5155–5159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavalli-Sforzas LL, Edwards AWF (1967) Phylogenetic analysis: models and estiation procedures. Evolution 32:550–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornish-Bowden A (1979) How reliably do amino acid composition comparisons predict sequence similarities between proteins? J Theor Biol 76:369–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayhoff MO (1979) Atlas of protein sequence and structure, vol 5, suppl 3. National Biomedical Research Foundation, Washington DC, p 8Google Scholar
  7. Dickerson RE, Geis I (1983) Hemoglobin: structure, function, evolution and pathology. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park CA, p 93Google Scholar
  8. Felsenstein J (1982) Numerical methods for inferring evolutionary trees. Q Rev Biol 57:379–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felsenstein J (1986) PHYLIP—phylogeny inference package (version 2.9). Unversity of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  10. Felsenstein J (1987) PHYLIP Newsletter, number 9, May 1987Google Scholar
  11. Gibbs AJ, Dale MB, Kinns HR, MacKenzie HG (1971) The transition matrix method for comparing sequences; its use in describing and classifying proteins by their amino acid sequence. Syst Zool 20:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jukes TH, Cantor CR (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro NH (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp 22–123Google Scholar
  13. Karlin S, Ghandour G, Foulser DE, Korn LJ (1984) Comparative analysis of human and bovine papillomaviruses. Mol Biol Evol 1:357–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Karlin S, Morris M, Ghandour G, Leung M (1988a) Efficient algorithms for molecular sequence analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:841–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karlin S, Morris M, Ghandour G, Leung M (1988b) Algorithms for identifying local molecular sequence features. CABIOS 4:41–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlin S, Ost F, Blaisdell BE (1989) Patterns in DNA and amino acid sequences and their statistical significance. In: Waterman MS (ed) Mathematical methods for DNA sequences. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Kittur SD, Hoppener JWM, Antonarakis SE, Daniels JDJ, Meyers DA, Maestri NE, Maarten J, Korneluk RG, Nelkin BD, Kazazian HH (1985) Linkage map of the shortarm of chromosome 11: location of the genes for catalase, calcitonin and insulin-like growth factor II. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:5064–5067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Konkel DA, Maizel JV, Leder P (1979) The evolution and sequence comparison of two recently diverged mouse chromosome beta-globin genes. Cell 18:865–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Needleman SB, Wunsch CD (1970) A general method applicable to the search for similarities intthe amino acid sequence of two proteins. J Mol Biol 48:443–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:408–425Google Scholar
  21. Smith TF, Waterman MS (1981) Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol 147:195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sourdis J, Nei M (1988) Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in attaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Mol Biol Evol 5:298–311PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Edwin Blaisdell
    • 1
  1. 1.Linus Pauling Institute of Science and MedicinePalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations