Summary
Statistical properties of the ordinary least-squares (OLS), generalized least-squares (GLS), and minimum-evolution (ME) methods of phylogenetic inference were studied by considering the case of four DNA sequences. Analytical study has shown that all three methods are statistically consistent in the sense that as the number of nucleotides examined (m) increases they tend to choose the true tree as long as the evolutionary distances used are unbiased. When evolutionary distances (dij's) are large and sequences under study are not very long, however, the OLS criterion is often biased and may choose an incorrect tree more often than expected under random choice. It is also shown that the variance-covariance matrix of dij's becomes singular as dij's approach zero and thus the GLS may not be applicable when dij's are small. The ME method suffers from neither of these problems, and the ME criterion is statistically unbiased. Computer simulation has shown that the ME method is more efficient in obtaining the true tree than the OLS and GLS methods and that the OLS is more efficient than the GLS when dij's are small, but otherwise the GLS is more efficient.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bulmer M (1989) Estimating the variability of substitution rates. Genetics 123:615–619
Bulmer M (1991) Use of the method of generalized least squares in reconstructing phylogenies from sequence data. Mol Biol Evol 8:868–883
Cavalli-Sforza LL, Edwards AWF (1967) Phylogenetic analysis: models and estimation procedures. Am J Hum Genet 19:233–257
Fitch WM, Margoliash E (1967) Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155:279–284
Jukes TH, Cantor CR (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HM (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, p 21
Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120
Kimura M, Ohta T (1972) On the stochastic model for estimation of mutational distance between homologous proteins. J Mol Evol 2:87–90
Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 65
Nei M, Jin L (1989) Variances of the average numbers of nucleotide substitutions within and between populations. Mol Biol Evol 6:290–300
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 2:66–85
Rao CR (1973) Linear statistical inference and its applications. Second edition. John Wiley and sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto, p. 220
Rzhetsky A, Nei M (1992) A simple method for estimating and testing minimum-evolution trees. Mol Biol Evol (in press)
Saitou N, Imanishi M (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 (1986) The number of nucleotides required to determine the branching order of three species, with special reference to the human-chimpanzee-gorilla divergence. J Mol Evol 24:189–204
Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4:406–425
Sourdis J, Krimbas C (1987) Accuracy of phylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequence data. Mol Biol Evol 4:159–166
Sourdis J, Nei M (1988) Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Mol Biol Evol 5:298–311
Tateno Y, Nei M, Tajima F (1982) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I. Distantly related species. J Mol Evol 18:387–404
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Offprint requests to: M. Nei
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rzhetsky, A., Nei, M. Statistical properties of the ordinary least-squares, generalized least-squares, and minimum-evolution methods of phylogenetic inference. J Mol Evol 35, 367–375 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161174
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161174