A new method called the neighbor-joining method is proposed for reconstructing phylogenetic trees from evolutionary distance data. The principle of this method is to find pairs of operational taxonomic units (OTUs [= neighbors]) that minimize the total branch length at each stage of clustering of OTUs starting with a starlike tree. The branch lengths as well as the topology of a parsimonious tree can quickly be obtained by using this method. Using computer simulation, we studied the efficiency of this method in obtaining the correct unrooted tree in comparison with that of five other tree-making methods: the unweighted pair group method of analysis, Farris's method, Sattath and Tversky's method, Li's method, and Tateno et al.'s modified Farris method. The new, neighbor-joining method and Sattath and Tversky's method are shown to be generally better than the other methods.

/pdf/the-neighbor-joining-method-a-new-method-for-reconstructing-j5gk4xv4lj.pdf

The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees.

The increase in the number of large data sets and the complexity of current probabilistic sequence evolution models necessitates fast and reliable phylogeny reconstruction methods. We describe a new approach, based on the maximum- likelihood principle, which clearly satisfies these requirements. The core of this method is a simple hill-climbing algorithm that adjusts tree topology and branch lengths simultaneously. This algorithm starts from an initial tree built by a fast distance-based method and modifies this tree to improve its likelihood at each iteration. Due to this simultaneous adjustment of the topology and branch lengths, only a few iterations are sufficient to reach an optimum. We used extensive and realistic computer simulations to show that the topological accuracy of this new method is at least as high as that of the existing maximum-likelihood programs and much higher than the performance of distance-based and parsimony approaches. The reduction of computing time is dramatic in comparison with other maximum-likelihood packages, while the likelihood maximization ability tends to be higher. For example, only 12 min were required on a standard personal computer to analyze a data set consisting of 500 rbcL sequences with 1,428 base pairs from plant plastids, thus reaching a speed of the same order as some popular distance-based and parsimony algorithms. This new method is implemented in the PHYML program, which is freely available on our web page: http://www.lirmm.fr/w3ifa/MAAS/. (Algorithm; computer simulations; maximum likelihood; phylogeny; rbcL; RDPII project.) The size of homologous sequence data sets has in- creased dramatically in recent years, and many of these data sets now involve several hundreds of taxa. More- over, current probabilistic sequence evolution models (Swofford et al., 1996 ; Page and Holmes, 1998 ), notably those including rate variation among sites (Uzzell and Corbin, 1971 ; Jin and Nei, 1990 ; Yang, 1996 ), require an increasing number of calculations. Therefore, the speed of phylogeny reconstruction methods is becoming a sig- nificant requirement and good compromises between speed and accuracy must be found. The maximum likelihood (ML) approach is especially accurate for building molecular phylogenies. Felsenstein (1981) brought this framework to nucleotide-based phy- logenetic inference, and it was later also applied to amino acid sequences (Kishino et al., 1990). Several vari- ants were proposed, most notably the Bayesian meth- ods (Rannala and Yang 1996; and see below), and the discrete Fourier analysis of Hendy et al. (1994), for ex- ample. Numerous computer studies (Huelsenbeck and Hillis, 1993; Kuhner and Felsenstein, 1994; Huelsenbeck, 1995; Rosenberg and Kumar, 2001; Ranwez and Gascuel, 2002) have shown that ML programs can recover the cor- rect tree from simulated data sets more frequently than other methods can. Another important advantage of the ML approach is the ability to compare different trees and evolutionary models within a statistical framework (see Whelan et al., 2001, for a review). However, like all optimality criterion-based phylogenetic reconstruction approaches, ML is hampered by computational difficul- ties, making it impossible to obtain the optimal tree with certainty from even moderate data sets (Swofford et al., 1996). Therefore, all practical methods rely on heuristics that obtain near-optimal trees in reasonable computing time. Moreover, the computation problem is especially difficult with ML, because the tree likelihood not only depends on the tree topology but also on numerical pa- rameters, including branch lengths. Even computing the optimal values of these parameters on a single tree is not an easy task, particularly because of possible local optima (Chor et al., 2000). The usual heuristic method, implemented in the pop- ular PHYLIP (Felsenstein, 1993 ) and PAUP ∗ (Swofford, 1999 ) packages, is based on hill climbing. It combines stepwise insertion of taxa in a growing tree and topolog- ical rearrangement. For each possible insertion position and rearrangement, the branch lengths of the resulting tree are optimized and the tree likelihood is computed. When the rearrangement improves the current tree or when the position insertion is the best among all pos- sible positions, the corresponding tree becomes the new current tree. Simple rearrangements are used during tree growing, namely "nearest neighbor interchanges" (see below), while more intense rearrangements can be used once all taxa have been inserted. The procedure stops when no rearrangement improves the current best tree. Despite significant decreases in computing times, no- tably in fastDNAml (Olsen et al., 1994 ), this heuristic becomes impracticable with several hundreds of taxa. This is mainly due to the two-level strategy, which sepa- rates branch lengths and tree topology optimization. In- deed, most calculations are done to optimize the branch lengths and evaluate the likelihood of trees that are finally rejected. New methods have thus been proposed. Strimmer and von Haeseler (1996) and others have assembled four- taxon (quartet) trees inferred by ML, in order to recon- struct a complete tree. However, the results of this ap- proach have not been very satisfactory to date (Ranwez and Gascuel, 2001 ). Ota and Li (2000, 2001) described

A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood.

With its theoretical basis firmly established in molecular evolutionary and population genetics, the comparative DNA and protein sequence analysis plays a central role in reconstructing the evolutionary histories of species and multigene families, estimating rates of molecular evolution, and inferring the nature and extent of selective forces shaping the evolution of genes and genomes. The scope of these investigations has now expanded greatly owing to the development of high-throughput sequencing techniques and novel statistical and computational methods. These methods require easy-to-use computer programs. One such effort has been to produce Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software, with its focus on facilitating the exploration and analysis of the DNA and protein sequence variation from an evolutionary perspective. Currently in its third major release, MEGA3 contains facilities for automatic and manual sequence alignment, web-based mining of databases, inference of the phylogenetic trees, estimation of evolutionary distances and testing evolutionary hypotheses. This paper provides an overview of the statistical methods, computational tools, and visual exploration modules for data input and the results obtainable in MEGA.

/pdf/mega3-integrated-software-for-molecular-evolutionary-1hk8vjhymf.pdf

MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment

PAML, currently in version 4, is a package of programs for phylogenetic analyses of DNA and protein sequences using maximum likelihood (ML). The programs may be used to compare and test phylogenetic trees, but their main strengths lie in the rich repertoire of evolutionary models implemented, which can be used to estimate parameters in models of sequence evolution and to test interesting biological hypotheses. Uses of the programs include estimation of synonymous and nonsynonymous rates (d(N) and d(S)) between two protein-coding DNA sequences, inference of positive Darwinian selection through phylogenetic comparison of protein-coding genes, reconstruction of ancestral genes and proteins for molecular restoration studies of extinct life forms, combined analysis of heterogeneous data sets from multiple gene loci, and estimation of species divergence times incorporating uncertainties in fossil calibrations. This note discusses some of the major applications of the package, which includes example data sets to demonstrate their use. The package is written in ANSI C, and runs under Windows, Mac OSX, and UNIX systems. It is available at -- (http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk/software/paml.html).

/pdf/paml-4-phylogenetic-analysis-by-maximum-likelihood-2gg19rsgos.pdf

PAML 4: Phylogenetic Analysis by Maximum Likelihood

Model-based molecular phylogenetics plays an important role in comparisons of genomic data, and model selection is a key step in all such analyses. We present ModelFinder, a fast model-selection method that greatly improves the accuracy of phylogenetic estimates by incorporating a model of rate heterogeneity across sites not previously considered in this context and by allowing concurrent searches of model space and tree space.

/pdf/modelfinder-fast-model-selection-for-accurate-phylogenetic-4hcz0zt4o8.pdf

ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates

A metric on general phylogenetic trees is presented. This extends the work of most previous authors, who constructed metrics for binary trees. The metric presented in this paper makes possible the comparison of the many nonbinary phylogenetic trees appearing in the literature. This provides an objective procedure for comparing the different methods for constructing phylogenetic trees. The metric is based on elementary operations which transform one tree into another. Various results obtained in applying these operations are given. They enable the distance between any pair of trees to be calculated efficiently. This generalizes previous work by Bourque to the case where interior vertices can be labeled, and labels may contain more than one element or may be empty.

Comparison of phylogenetic trees

The results in a previous paper on the comparison of (unweighted) labelled trees are extended to the comparison of weighted labelled trees. An elementary operation is introduced which enables one to transform one weighted labelled tree into another. The operation makes it possible to compare different trees in a quantitative way in the sense of defining a "distance" between them. An application to a problem in molecular evolution is given.

Comparison of weighted labelled trees

The plant layout problem is an important industrial problem that remains unsolved. Seppanen and Moore considered an important subproblem: that of the optimal specification of which facilities are to be adjacent in the final layout without regard to the area or shape of the individual facilities. They present a string processing heuristic which relies on using a test for graph planarity. This paper further develops their graph theoretic formulation of the problem. This development is used to present two procedures which usually yield near-optimal solutions. The procedures circumvent the considerable difficulty of graph planarity testing by working entirely within a family of graphs known to be planar and also to contain the solution. Ways of improving suboptimal solutions are discussed. Computational experience in using the methods on a variety of problems suggests that the methods are efficient.

Graph theoretic heuristics for the plant layout problem

We consider the problem of laying out the facilities of which a plant is composed, in terms of specifying which facilities are to be adjacent. For each pair of facilities a benefit from siting them adjacent to each other is known. We seek to maximise the sum of benefits over all pairs of adjacent facilities.

D. F. Robinson

Papers

Comparison of phylogenetic trees

Comparison of weighted labelled trees

Graph theoretic heuristics for the plant layout problem

A Strategy for Solving the Plant Layout Problem

Digraphs: Theory and Techniques