Topic

# Tree rearrangement

About: Tree rearrangement is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 958 publications have been published within this topic receiving 188351 citations.

##### Papers published on a yearly basis

##### Papers

More filters

••

[...]

TL;DR: The neighbor-joining method and Sattath and Tversky's method are shown to be generally better than the other methods for reconstructing phylogenetic trees from evolutionary distance data.

Abstract: 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.

54,096 citations

••

[...]

TL;DR: The newest addition in MEGA5 is a collection of maximum likelihood (ML) analyses for inferring evolutionary trees, selecting best-fit substitution models, inferring ancestral states and sequences, and estimating evolutionary rates site-by-site.

Abstract: Comparative analysis of molecular sequence data is essential for reconstructing the evolutionary histories of species and inferring the nature and extent of selective forces shaping the evolution of genes and species. Here, we announce the release of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 5 (MEGA5), which is a user-friendly software for mining online databases, building sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees, and using methods of evolutionary bioinformatics in basic biology, biomedicine, and evolution. The newest addition in MEGA5 is a collection of maximum likelihood (ML) analyses for inferring evolutionary trees, selecting best-fit substitution models (nucleotide or amino acid), inferring ancestral states and sequences (along with probabilities), and estimating evolutionary rates site-by-site. In computer simulation analyses, ML tree inference algorithms in MEGA5 compared favorably with other software packages in terms of computational efficiency and the accuracy of the estimates of phylogenetic trees, substitution parameters, and rate variation among sites. The MEGA user interface has now been enhanced to be activity driven to make it easier for the use of both beginners and experienced scientists. This version of MEGA is intended for the Windows platform, and it has been configured for effective use on Mac OS X and Linux desktops. It is available free of charge from http://www.megasoftware.net.

37,583 citations

••

[...]

TL;DR: This work has 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.

Abstract: 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

15,495 citations

••

[...]

TL;DR: A computationally feasible method for finding such maximum likelihood estimates is developed, and a computer program is available that allows the testing of hypotheses about the constancy of evolutionary rates by likelihood ratio tests.

Abstract: The application of maximum likelihood techniques to the estimation of evolutionary trees from nucleic acid sequence data is discussed. A computationally feasible method for finding such maximum likelihood estimates is developed, and a computer program is available. This method has advantages over the traditional parsimony algorithms, which can give misleading results if rates of evolution differ in different lineages. It also allows the testing of hypotheses about the constancy of evolutionary rates by likelihood ratio tests, and gives rough indication of the error of the estimate of the tree.

12,078 citations

••

[...]

TL;DR: This article reviews the terminology used for phylogenetic networks and covers both split networks and reticulate networks, how they are defined, and how they can be interpreted and outlines the beginnings of a comprehensive statistical framework for applying split network methods.

Abstract: The evolutionary history of a set of taxa is usually represented by a phylogenetic tree, and this model has greatly facilitated the discussion and testing of hypotheses. However, it is well known that more complex evolutionary scenarios are poorly described by such models. Further, even when evolution proceeds in a tree-like manner, analysis of the data may not be best served by using methods that enforce a tree structure but rather by a richer visualization of the data to evaluate its properties, at least as an essential first step. Thus, phylogenetic networks should be employed when reticulate events such as hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, recombination, or gene duplication and loss are believed to be involved, and, even in the absence of such events, phylogenetic networks have a useful role to play. This article reviews the terminology used for phylogenetic networks and covers both split networks and reticulate networks, how they are defined, and how they can be interpreted. Additionally, the article outlines the beginnings of a comprehensive statistical framework for applying split network methods. We show how split networks can represent confidence sets of trees and introduce a conservative statistical test for whether the conflicting signal in a network is treelike. Finally, this article describes a new program, SplitsTree4, an interactive and comprehensive tool for inferring different types of phylogenetic networks from sequences, distances, and trees.

6,484 citations