Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I. Distantly related species - PubMed (original) (raw)

• PMID: 7175956
• DOI: 10.1007/BF01840887

Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. I. Distantly related species

Y Tateno et al. J Mol Evol. 1982.

Abstract

The accuracies and efficiencies of four different methods for constructing phylogenetic trees from molecular data were examined by using computer simulation. The methods examined are UPGMA, Fitch and Margoliash's (1967) (F/M) method, Farris' (1972) method, and the modified Farris method (Tateno, Nei, and Tajima, this paper). In the computer simulation, eight OTUs (32 OTUs in one case) were assumed to evolve according to a given model tree, and the evolutionary change of a sequence of 300 nucleotides was followed. The nucleotide substitution in this sequence was assumed to occur following the Poisson distribution, negative binomial distribution or a model of temporally varying rate. Estimates of nucleotide substitutions (genetic distances) were then computed for all pairs of the nucleotide sequences that were generated at the end of the evolution considered, and from these estimates a phylogenetic tree was reconstructed and compared with the true model tree. The results of this comparison indicate that when the coefficient of variation of branch length is large the Farris and modified Farris methods tend to be better than UPGMA and the F/M method for obtaining a good topology. For estimating the number of nucleotide substitutions for each branch of the tree, however, the modified Farris method shows a better performance than the Farris method. When the coefficient of variation of branch length is small, however, UPGMA shows the best performance among the four methods examined. Nevertheless, any tree-making method is likely to make errors in obtaining the correct topology with a high probability, unless all branch lengths of the true tree are sufficiently long. It is also shown that the agreement between patristic and observed genetic distances is not a good indicator of the goodness of the tree obtained.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. II. Gene frequency data.
  Nei M, Tajima F, Tateno Y. Nei M, et al. J Mol Evol. 1983;19(2):153-70. doi: 10.1007/BF02300753. J Mol Evol. 1983. PMID: 6571220
• Accuracy of phylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequence data.
  Sourdis J, Krimbas C. Sourdis J, et al. Mol Biol Evol. 1987 Mar;4(2):159-66. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040432. Mol Biol Evol. 1987. PMID: 3447006
• Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree.
  Sourdis J, Nei M. Sourdis J, et al. Mol Biol Evol. 1988 May;5(3):298-311. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040497. Mol Biol Evol. 1988. PMID: 3386530
• Using models of nucleotide evolution to build phylogenetic trees.
  Bos DH, Posada D. Bos DH, et al. Dev Comp Immunol. 2005;29(3):211-27. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2004.07.007. Dev Comp Immunol. 2005. PMID: 15572070 Review.
• Inferring the Deep Past from Molecular Data.
  Williams TA, Schrempf D, Szöllősi GJ, Cox CJ, Foster PG, Embley TM. Williams TA, et al. Genome Biol Evol. 2021 May 7;13(5):evab067. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evab067. Genome Biol Evol. 2021. PMID: 33772552 Free PMC article. Review.

Cited by

• The Bourque distances for mutation trees of cancers.
  Jahn K, Beerenwinkel N, Zhang L. Jahn K, et al. Algorithms Mol Biol. 2021 Jun 10;16(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13015-021-00188-3. Algorithms Mol Biol. 2021. PMID: 34112201 Free PMC article.
• Deep sampling and pooled amplicon sequencing reveals hidden genic variation in heterogeneous rye accessions.
  Hawliczek A, Bolibok L, Tofil K, Borzęcka E, Jankowicz-Cieślak J, Gawroński P, Kral A, Till BJ, Bolibok-Brągoszewska H. Hawliczek A, et al. BMC Genomics. 2020 Nov 30;21(1):845. doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-07240-3. BMC Genomics. 2020. PMID: 33256606 Free PMC article.
• Effect of F1 and F2 generations on genetic variability and working steps of doubled haploid production in maize.
  Couto EGO, Cury MN, Bandeira E Souza M, Granato ÍSC, Vidotti MS, Domingos Garbuglio D, Crossa J, Burgueño J, Fritsche-Neto R. Couto EGO, et al. PLoS One. 2019 Nov 11;14(11):e0224631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224631. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31710611 Free PMC article.
• Temporal genetic differentiation in Glossina pallidipes tsetse fly populations in Kenya.
  Okeyo WA, Saarman NP, Mengual M, Dion K, Bateta R, Mireji PO, Okoth S, Ouma JO, Ouma C, Ochieng J, Murilla G, Aksoy S, Caccone A. Okeyo WA, et al. Parasit Vectors. 2017 Oct 10;10(1):471. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2415-y. Parasit Vectors. 2017. PMID: 29017572 Free PMC article.
• Two genomic regions associated with fiber quality traits in Chinese upland cotton under apparent breeding selection.
  Su J, Li L, Pang C, Wei H, Wang C, Song M, Wang H, Zhao S, Zhang C, Mao G, Huang L, Wang C, Fan S, Yu S. Su J, et al. Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 7;6:38496. doi: 10.1038/srep38496. Sci Rep. 2016. PMID: 27924947 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Science. 1967 Jan 20;155(3760):279-84 - PubMed
2. 1. J Theor Biol. 1973 Mar;38(3):459-85 - PubMed
3. 1. J Mol Evol. 1971;1(1):18-25 - PubMed
4. 1. Nature. 1964 Apr 11;202:147-52 - PubMed
5. 1. Biometrics. 1965 Jun;21:362-75 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms