Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 282, Issue 3–4, pp 109–126 | Cite as

Phylogenetic models and model selection for noncoding DNA

  • Scot A. KelchnerEmail author
Review

Abstract

Awareness of the complex structure and evolutionary dynamics of noncoding DNA has improved both noncoding sequence alignment and the use of microstructural changes as characters in phylogenetic analysis. The next step is to consider improvements in the use and selection of phylogenetic models for noncoding sequence data. Models of character evolution are central to phylogeny estimation, but the use of an inadequate model can mislead topology selection and branch length estimations. This is particularly likely when sequence divergence is either limited (nearly invariable, as in population-level or species-level studies) or extreme (nearly saturated, as in deep-level studies that focus on conserved secondary structures). Noncoding data sets are often at these extremes, and they can be particularly awkward for model definition and model selection. This paper introduces the goals of model use in phylogenetics and identifies ten issues that arise from the application of models to noncoding sequence data. It is concluded that most of these issues derive from small data set sizes, very low or very high sequence variability, limitations of current phylogenetic models, and possibly character definition and nonindependence. Recommendations are made that should help to improve alignment, character quality, model selection, and phylogeny estimation based on noncoding sequence data.

Keywords

Noncoding DNA Model selection Model adequacy Sampling error Intergenic spacers Introns 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support during the development of this article was provided by National Science Foundation award DEB-0515828 to S.A. Kelchner. The author thanks Sean Graham for his careful comments and prompting during the formation of the manuscript, Amanda Fisher and Chang Liu for their fine-tuning of the text, an anonymous reviewer for insightful suggestions that clarified several of the issues discussed, and Thomas Borsch, Dietmar Quandt and the German Science Foundation for their kind invitation to present this topic at the 17th International Symposium on Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology in Bonn, Germany (September 2006).

References

  1. Alvarez I, Wendel JF (2003) Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Molec Phylogenet Evol 29:417–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin BG, Sanderson MJ, Porter JM, Wojciechowski MF, Campbell CS, Donoghue MJ (1995) The ITS region of nuclear ribosomal DNA: a valuable source of evidence on angiosperm phylogeny. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 82:247–277Google Scholar
  3. Borsch T, Hilu KW, Quandt D, Wilde V, Neinhuis C, Barthlott W (2003) Noncoding plastid trnT–trnF sequences reveal a well-resolved phylogeny of basal angiosperms. J Evol Biol 16:558–576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borsch T, Hilu KW, Wiersema JH, Löhne C, Barthlott W, Wilde V (2007) Phylogeny of Nymphaea (Nymphaeaceae): evidence from substitutions and microstructural changes in the chloroplast trnT–trnF region. Int J Pl Sci 168:639–671Google Scholar
  5. Brinkmann H, Van der Giezen M, Zhou Y, de Raucourt GP, Philippe H (2005) An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst Biol 54:743–757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JM, Lemmon AR (2007) The importance of data partitioning and the utility of Bayes factors in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol 56:643–655PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckley TR (2002) Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: evidence from empirical data sets. Syst Biol 51:509–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckley TR, Cunningham CW (2002) The effects of nucleotide substitution model assumptions on estimates of nonparametric bootstrap support. Molec Biol Evol 19:394–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckley TR, Simon C, Chambers GK (2001a) Exploring among-site rate variation models in a maximum likelihood framework using empirical data: effects of model assumptions on estimates of topology, branch lengths, and bootstrap support. Syst Biol 50:67–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckley TR, Simon C, Shimodaira H, Chambers GK (2001b) Evaluating hypotheses on the origin and evolution of the New Zealand alpine cicadas (Maoricicada) using multiple-comparison tests of tree topology. Molec Biol Evol 18:223–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bull JJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW, Swofford DL, Waddell PJ (1993) Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 42:384–397Google Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins TM, Wimberger PH, Naylor GJP (1994) Compositional bias, character-state bias, and character-state reconstruction using parsimony. Syst Biol 43:482–496Google Scholar
  14. Cummings MP, Nugent JM, Olmstead RG, Palmer JD (2003) Phylogenetic analysis reveals five independent transfers of the chloroplast gene rbcL to the mitochondrial genome in angiosperms. Curr Genet 43:131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham CW, Zhu H, Hillis DM (1998) Best-fit maximum-likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978–987Google Scholar
  16. de Pamphilis CW, Palmer JD (1990) Loss of photosynthetic and chlororespiratory genes from the plastid genome of a parasitic flowering plant. Nature 348:337–339Google Scholar
  17. Dixon MT, Hillis DM (1993) Ribosomal RNA secondary structure: compensatory mutations and implications for phylogenetic analysis. Molec Biol Evol 10:256–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Drábkova L, Kirschner J, Vlcek C, Pacek V (2004) TrnL–trnF intergenic spacer and trnL intron define major clades within Luzula and Juncus (Juncaceae): importance of structural mutations. J Molec Evol 59:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dumolin-Lapègue S, Pemonge M-H, Petit RJ (1998) Association between chloroplast and mitochondrial lineages in oaks. Molec Biol Evol 15:1321–1331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791Google Scholar
  21. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitch WM (1971) Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 20:406–416Google Scholar
  23. Galtier N (2001) Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analysis under a covarion-like model. Mol Biol Evol 18:866–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldman N (1993) Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J Molec Evol 36:182–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Golenberg EM, Clegg MT, Durbin ML, Doebley J, Ma DP (1993) Evolution of a non-coding region of the chloroplast genome. Molec Phylogenet Evol 2:52–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham SW, Olmstead RG (2000) Evolutionary significance of an unusual chloroplast DNA inversion found in two basal angiosperm lineages. Curr Genet 37:183–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham SW, Reeves PA, Burns ACE, Olmstead RG (2000) Microstructural changes in noncoding chloroplast DNA: interpretation, evolution, and utility of indels and inversions in basal angiosperm phylogenetic inference. Int J Pl Sci 161:S83–S96Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton MB, Braverman JM, Soria-Hernanz DF (2003) Patterns and relative rates of nucleotide and insertion/deletion evolution at six chloroplast intergenic regions in the New World species of Lecythidaceae. Molec Biol Evol 20:1710–1721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Holland BR, Penny D, Hendy MD (2003) Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock—a simulation study. Syst Biol 52:229–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Huelsenbeck JP, Neilsen R (1999) Effect of nonindependent substitution on phylogenetic accuracy. Syst Biol 48:317–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (1997) Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276:227–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (2004) Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst Biol 53:904–913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingvarsson PK, Ribstein S, Taylor DR (2003) Molecular evolution of insertions and deletion in the chloroplast genome of Silene. Molec Biol Evol 20:1737–1740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jukes TH, Cantor CR (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HN (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp 21–123Google Scholar
  35. Kelchner SA (2000) The evolution of noncoding chloroplast DNA and its application in plant systematics. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 87:482–498Google Scholar
  36. Kelchner SA (2002) Group II introns as phylogenetic tools: structure, function, and evolutionary constraints. Amer J Bot 89:1651–1669Google Scholar
  37. Kelchner SA (2003) Phylogenetic structure, biogeography, and evolution of Myoporaceae. The Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelchner SA, Clark LG (1997) Molecular evolution and phylogenetic utility of the chloroplast rpl16 intron in Chusquea and the Bambusoideae (Poaceae). Molec Phylogenet Evol 8:385–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelchner SA, Thomas MA (2007) Model use in phylogenetics: nine key questions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:87–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelchner SA, Wendel JF (1996) Hairpins create minute inversions in non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Curr Genet 30:259–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim K-J, Lee H-L (2005) Widespread occurrence of small inversions in the chloroplast genomes of land plants. Mol Cells 19:104–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Knoop V (2004) The mitochondrial DNA of land plants: peculiarities in phylogenetic perspective. Curr Genet 46:123–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Koch MA, Dobes C, Kiefer C, Schmickl R, Klimes L, Lysak MA (2006) Supernetwork identifies multiple events of plastid trnF(GAA) pseudogene evolution in the Brassicaceae. Molec Biol Evol 24:63–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kudla J, Albertazzi FJ, Blazevic D, Hermann M, Bock R (2002) Loss of the mitochondrial cox2 intron 1 in a family of monocotyledonous plants and utilization of mitochondrial intron sequences for the construction of a nuclear intron. Molec Genet Genomics 267:223–230Google Scholar
  45. Laroche J, Bousquet J (1999) Evolution of the mitochondrial rps3 intron in perennial and annual angiosperms and homology to nad5 intron 1. Molec Biol Evol 16:441–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lemmon AR, Moriarty EC (2004) The importance of proper model assumption in bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol 53:265–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis PO (1998) Maximum likelihood as an alternative to parsimony for inferring phylogeny using nucleotide sequence data. In: Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 132–163Google Scholar
  48. Lewis PO (2001) A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst Biol 50:913–925PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA, Hendy MD, Penny D (1994) Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Molec Biol Evol 11:605–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lockhart P, Novis P, Milligan BG, Riden J, Rambaut A, Larkum T (2006) Heterotachy and tree building: a case study with plastids and eubacteria. Molec Biol Evol 23:40–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Löhne C, Borsch T (2005) Molecular evolution and phylogenetic utility of the petD group II intron: a case study in basal angiosperms. Molec Biol Evol 22:317–3332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Lopez P, Casane D, Philippe H (2002) Heterotachy, and important process in protein evolution. Molec Biol Evol 19:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Lutzoni F, Wagner P, Reeb V, Zoller S (2000) Integrating ambiguously aligned regions of DNA sequences in phylogenetic analyses without violating positional homology. Syst Biol 49:628–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Meimberg H, Thalhammer S, Brachmann A, Heubl G (2006) Comparative analysis of a translocated copy of the trnK intron in carnivorous family Nepenthaceae. Molec Phylogenet Evol 39:478–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mes THM, Kuperus P, Kirschner J, Stepanek J, Oosterveld P, Storchova H, den Nijs JCM (2000) Hairpins involving both inverted and direct repeats are associated with homoplasious indels in non-coding chloroplast DNA of Taraxacum (Lactuceae: Asteraceae). Genome 43:634–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Miyamoto MM, Fitch WM (1995) Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst Biol 44:64–76Google Scholar
  57. Morrison DA (2006) Multiple sequence alignment for phylogenetic purposes. Austral Syst Bot 19:479–539Google Scholar
  58. Müller K (2006) Incorporating information from length-mutational events into phylogenetic analysis. Molec Phylogenet Evol 38:667–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Müller K, Borsch T (2005a) Phylogenetics of Utricularia (Lentibulariaceae) and molecular evolution of the trnK intron in a lineage with high substitutional rates. Pl Syst Evol 250:39–67Google Scholar
  60. Müller K, Borsch T (2005b) Phylogenetics of Amaranthaceae based on matK/trnK sequence data—evidence from parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 92:66–102Google Scholar
  61. Müller K, Borsch T, Hilu KW (2006) Phylogenetic utility of rapidly evolving DNA at high taxonomical levels: contrasting matK, trnT–F, and rbcL in basal angiosperms. Molec Phylogenet Evol 41:99–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Muse SV (1995) Evolutionary analyses of DNA sequences subject to constraints on secondary structure. Genetics 139:1429–1439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Naylor GJP, Brown WM (1998) Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst Biol 47:61–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Nei M, Kumar S (2000) Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  65. Neinhuis C, Wanke S, Hilu KW, Müller K, Borsch T (2005) Phylogeny of Aristolochiaceae based on parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses of trnL–trnF sequences. Pl Syst Evol 250:7–26Google Scholar
  66. Nylander JAA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2004) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst Biol 53:47–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Ogden TH, Rosenberg MS (2007) How should gaps be treated in parsimony? A comparison of approaches using simulation. Molec Phylogenet Evol 42:817–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pagel M, Meade A (2004) A phylogenetic mixture model for detecting pattern-heterogeneity in gene sequence or character-state data. Syst Biol 53:571–581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Penny D, Hendy MD, Steel MA (1992) Progress with methods for constructing evolutionary trees. Trends Ecol Evol 7:73–79Google Scholar
  70. Penny D, McComish BJ, Charleston MA, Hendy MD (2001) Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: the covarion model of molecular evolution. J Molec Evol 53:711–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Philippe H, Lopez P (2001) On the conservation of protein sequences in evolution. Trends Biochem Sci 26:414–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Phillips MJ, Delsuc F, Penny D (2004) Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Molec Biol Evol 21:1455–1458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Pirie MD, Vargas MPB, Botermans M, Bakker FT, Chatrou LW (2007) Ancient paralogy in the cpDNA trnL–F region in Annonaceae: implications for plant molecular systematics. Amer J Bot 94:1003–1016Google Scholar
  74. Pol D (2004) Empirical problems of the hierarchical likelihood ratio test for model selection. Syst Biol 53:949–962PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Posada D, Buckley TR (2004) Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst Biol 53:793–808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) ModelTest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Pupko T, Huchon D, Cao Y, Okada N, Hasegawa M (2002) Combining multiple data sets in a likelihood analysis: which models are the best? Molec Biol Evol 19:2294–2307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Quandt D, Stech M (2004) Molecular evolution of the trnT(UGU)–trnF(GAA) region in bryophytes. Pl Biol 6:545–554Google Scholar
  79. Quandt D, Stech M (2005) Molecular evolution of the trnL-UAA intron in bryophytes. Molec Phylogenet Evol 36:429–443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Quandt D, Müller K, Huttunen S (2003) Characterization of the chloroplast DNA psbT–H region and the influence of dyad symmetrical elements on phylogenetic reconstructions. Pl Biol 5:400–410Google Scholar
  81. Quandt D, Müller K, Stech M, Frahm J-P, Frey W, Hilu KW, Borsch T (2004) Molecular evolution of the chloroplast trnL–F region in land plants. Monogr Syst Bot Missouri Bot Gard 98:13–37Google Scholar
  82. Rodríguez F, Oliver JL, Marín A, Medina JR (1990) The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol 142:485–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N, Brinkmann H, Roure B, Lartillot N, Lang BF, Philippe H (2007) Detecting and overcoming systematic error in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst Biol 56:389–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Sanderson MJ (1995) Objections to bootstrapping phylogenies: a critique. Syst Biol 44:299–320Google Scholar
  86. Sanderson MJ, Kim J (2000) Parametric phylogenetics? Syst Biol 49:817–829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Sang T, Crawford DJ, Stuessy TF (1997) Chloroplast DNA phylogeny, reticulate evolution, and biogeography of Paeonia (Paeoniaceae). Amer J Bot 84:1120–1136Google Scholar
  88. Schöniger M, von Haeseler A (1994) A stochastic model for the evolution of autocorrelated DNA sequences. Molec Phylogenet Evol 3:240–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Shahmuradov IA, Akbarova YY, Solovyev VV, Aliyev JA (2003) Abundance of plastid DNA insertions in nuclear genomes of rice and Arabidopsis. Pl Molec Biol 52:923–934Google Scholar
  90. Shimodaira H (2002) An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol 51:492–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M (1999) Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Molec Biol Evol 16:1114–1116Google Scholar
  92. Simmons MP, Ochoterena H (2000) Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst Biol 49:369–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Steel M, Huson D, Lockhart PJ (2000) Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst Biol 49:225–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Stefanovic S, Rice D, Palmer JD (2004) Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol Biol 4:35–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Sullivan J, Joyce P (2005) Model selection in phylogenetics. Annual Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:445–466Google Scholar
  96. Sullivan J, Swofford DL (2001) Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution patterns are violated? Syst Biol 50:723–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Sullivan J, Holsinger KE, Simon C (1995) Among-site rate variation and phylogenetic analysis of 12S rRNA in Sigmodontine rodents. Molec Biol Evol 12:988–1001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Sullivan J, Arellano E, Rogers DS (2000) Comparative phylogeography of Mesoamerican highland rodents: concerted versus independent response to climatic fluctuations. Amer Naturalist 155:755–768Google Scholar
  99. Swofford DL (1998) PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (* and other methods). Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  100. Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM (1996) Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable B (eds) Molecular systematics. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 407–514Google Scholar
  101. Swofford DL, Waddell PJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Foster PG, Lewis PO, Rogers JS (2001) Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst Biol 50:525–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Tillier ERM, Collins RA (1995) Neighbor joining and maximum likelihood with RNA sequences: addressing the interdependence of sites. Molec Biol Evol 12:7–15Google Scholar
  103. van Ham RCHJ, t’Hart H, Mes THM, Sandbrink JM (1994) Molecular evolution of non-coding regions of the chloroplast genome in the Crassulaceae and related species. Curr Genet 25:558–566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Vijverberg K, Bachmann K (1999) Molecular evolution of a tandemly repeated trnF (GAA) gene in the chloroplast genome of Microseris (Asteraceae) and the use of structural mutations in phylogenetic analysis. Molec Biol Evol 16:1329–1340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Waddell PJ (1995) Statistical methods of phylogenetic analysis, including Hadamard conjugations, LogDet transforms, and maximum likelihood. Massey University, Palmerston North, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  106. Wakeley J (1994) Substitution-rate variation among sites and the estimation of transition bias. Molec Biol Evol 11:436–442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Wakeley J (1996) The excess of transitions among nucleotide substitutions: new methods of estimating transition bias underscore its significance. Trends Ecol Evol 11:158–163Google Scholar
  108. Wanke S, Jaramillo MA, Borsch T, Samain M-S, Quandt D, Neinhuis C (2007) Evolution of Piperales—matK gene and trnK intron sequence data reveal lineage specific resolution contrast. Molec Phylogenet Evol 42:477–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Whelan S, Lio P, Goldman N (2001) Molecular phylogenetics: state of the art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet 17:262–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilgenbusch J, de Queiroz K (2000) Phylogenetic relationships among the Phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogeneous evolutionary processes. Syst Biol 49:592–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Wolfe AD, Randle CP (2004) Recombination, heteroplasmy, haplotype polymorphism, and paralogy in plastid genes: implications for plant molecular systematics. Syst Bot 29:1011–1020Google Scholar
  112. Won H, Renner SS (2003) Horizontal gene transfer from flowering plants to Gnetum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10824–10829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Won H, Renner SS (2005) The chloroplast trnT–trnF region in the seed plant lineage Gnetales. J Molec Evol 61:425–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Worberg A, Quandt D, Barniske A-M, Löhne C, Hilu KW, Borsch T (2007) Phylogeny of basal eudicots: insights from non-coding and rapidly evolving DNA. Organisms Diver Evol 7:55–77Google Scholar
  115. Yang Z (1995) A space-time process model for the evolution of DNA sequences. Genetics 139:993–1005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Yang Z (1996) Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends Ecol Evol 11:367–372Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesIdaho State UniversityIDUSA

Personalised recommendations