Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (143)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tateno, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Nei, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tateno, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Nei, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 11, 261-277, Copyright © 1994 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Relative efficiencies of the maximum-likelihood, neighbor-joining, and maximum-parsimony methods when substitution rate varies with site

Y Tateno, N Takezaki and M Nei
National Institute of Genetics, Mishima.

The relative efficiencies of the maximum-likelihood (ML), neighbor- joining (NJ), and maximum-parsimony (MP) methods in obtaining the correct topology and in estimating the branch lengths for the case of four DNA sequences were studied by computer simulation, under the assumption either that there is variation in substitution rate among different nucleotide sites or that there is no variation. For the NJ method, several different distance measures (Jukes-Cantor, Kimura two- parameter, and gamma distances) were used, whereas for the ML method three different transition/transversion ratios (R) were used. For the MP method, both the standard unweighted parsimony and the dynamically weighted parsimony methods were used. The results obtained are as follows: (1) When the R value is high, dynamically weighted parsimony is more efficient than unweighted parsimony in obtaining the correct topology. (2) However, both weighted and unweighted parsimony methods are generally less efficient than the NJ and ML methods even in the case where the MP method gives a consistent tree. (3) When all the assumptions of the ML method are satisfied, this method is slightly more efficient than the NJ method. However, when the assumptions are not satisfied, the NJ method with gamma distances is slightly better in obtaining the correct topology than is the ML method. In general, the two methods show more or less the same performance. The NJ method may give a correct topology even when the distance measures used are not unbiased estimators of nucleotide substitutions. (4) Branch length estimates of a tree with the correct topology are affected more easily than topology by violation of the assumptions of the mathematical model used, for both the ML and the NJ methods. Under certain conditions, branch lengths are seriously overestimated or underestimated. The MP method often gives serious underestimates for certain branches. (5) Distance measures that generate the correct topology, with high probability, do not necessarily give good estimates of branch lengths. (6) The likelihood-ratio test and the confidence-limit test, in Felsenstein's DNAML, for examining the statistical of branch length estimates are quite sensitive to violation of the assumptions and are generally too liberal to be used for actual data. Rzhetsky and Nei's branch length test is less sensitive to violation of the assumptions than is Felsenstein's test. (7) When the extent of sequence divergence is < or = 5% and when > or = 1,000 nucleotides are used, all three methods show essentially the same efficiency in obtaining the correct topology and in estimating branch lengths.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Genome ResHome page
M. D. Rasmussen and M. Kellis
Accurate gene-tree reconstruction by learning gene- and species-specific substitution rates across multiple complete genomes
Genome Res., December 1, 2007; 17(12): 1932 - 1942.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BioinformaticsHome page
M. Ninio, E. Privman, T. Pupko, and N. Friedman
Phylogeny reconstruction: increasing the accuracy of pairwise distance estimation using Bayesian inference of evolutionary rates
Bioinformatics, January 15, 2007; 23(2): e136 - e141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
N. Cobbe and M. M. S. Heck
The Evolution of SMC Proteins: Phylogenetic Analysis and Structural Implications
Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2004; 21(2): 332 - 347.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
A. M. Dean, C. Neuhauser, E. Grenier, and G. B. Golding
The Pattern of Amino Acid Replacements in {alpha}/{beta}-Barrels
Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2002; 19(11): 1846 - 1864.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
S. Guindon and O. Gascuel
Efficient Biased Estimation of Evolutionary Distances When Substitution Rates Vary Across Sites
Mol. Biol. Evol., April 1, 2002; 19(4): 534 - 543.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
S. Ota and W.-H. Li
NJML+: An Extension of the NJML Method to Handle Protein Sequence Data and Computer Software Implementation
Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2001; 18(11): 1983 - 1992.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
D. Posada and K. A. Crandall
Simple (Wrong) Models for Complex Trees: A Case from Retroviridae
Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2001; 18(2): 271 - 275.
[Full Text]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
T. J. Barkman, G. Chenery, J. R. McNeal, J. Lyons-Weiler, W. J. Ellisens, G. Moore, A. D. Wolfe, and C. W. dePamphilis
Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny
PNAS, November 2, 2000; (2000) 220427497.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
S. Ota and W.-H. Li
NJML: A Hybrid Algorithm for the Neighbor-Joining and Maximum-Likelihood Methods
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2000; 17(9): 1401 - 1409.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
K. Takahashi and M. Nei
Efficiencies of Fast Algorithms of Phylogenetic Inference Under the Criteria of Maximum Parsimony, Minimum Evolution, and Maximum Likelihood When a Large Number of Sequences Are Used
Mol. Biol. Evol., August 1, 2000; 17(8): 1251 - 1258.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
Z. Yang and R. Nielsen
Estimating Synonymous and Nonsynonymous Substitution Rates Under Realistic Evolutionary Models
Mol. Biol. Evol., January 1, 2000; 17(1): 32 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Genome ResHome page
J. P. Slattery, G. Franchini, and A. Gessain
Genomic Evolution, Patterns of Global Dissemination, and Interspecies Transmission of Human and Simian T-cell Leukemia/Lymphotropic Viruses
Genome Res., June 1, 1999; 9(6): 525 - 540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
M. Nei, S. Kumar, and K. Takahashi
The optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis tends to give incorrect topologies when the number of nucleotides or amino acids used is small
PNAS, October 13, 1998; 95(21): 12390 - 12397.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ScienceHome page
D. M. Hillis and J. P. Huelsenbeck
Response
Science, January 13, 1995; 267(5195): 255 - 256.
[PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
T. J. Barkman, G. Chenery, J. R. McNeal, J. Lyons-Weiler, W. J. Ellisens, G. Moore, A. D. Wolfe, and C. W. dePamphilis
From the Cover: Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny
PNAS, November 21, 2000; 97(24): 13166 - 13171.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.