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 (42)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilkinson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilkinson, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 13, 437-444, Copyright © 1996 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping

M Wilkinson
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, England. Mark.Wilkinson@bris.ac.uk

Bootstrap analyses are usually summarized with majority-rule component consensus trees. This consensus method is based on replicated components and, like all component consensus methods, it is insensitive to other kinds of agreement between trees. Recently developed reduced consensus methods can be used to summarize much additional agreement on hypothesised phylogenetic relationships among multiple trees. The new methods are "strict" in the sense that they require agreement among all the trees being compared for any relationships to be represented in a consensus tree. Majority-rule reduced consensus methods are described and their use in bootstrap analyses is illustrated with a hypothetical and a real example. The new methods provide summaries of the bootstrap proportions of all n-taxon statements/partitions and facilitate the identification of hypotheses of relationships that are supported by high bootstrap proportions, in spite of a lack of support for particular components or clades. In practice majority-rule reduced consensus profiles may contain many trees. The size of the profile can be reduced by constraints on minimal bootstrap proportions and/or cardinality of the included trees. Majority-rule reduced consensus trees can also be selected a posteriori from the profile. Surrogates to the majority-rule reduced consensus methods using partition tables or tree pruning options provided by widely used phylogenetic inference software are also described. The methods are designed to produce more informative summaries of bootstrap analyses and thereby foster more informed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of complex phylogenetic hypotheses.
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
Mol Biol EvolHome page
E. A. Sperling, K. J. Peterson, and D. Pisani
Phylogenetic-Signal Dissection of Nuclear Housekeeping Genes Supports the Paraphyly of Sponges and the Monophyly of Eumetazoa
Mol. Biol. Evol., October 1, 2009; 26(10): 2261 - 2274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
A. Cobbett, M. Wilkinson, and M. A Wills
Fossils Impact as Hard as Living Taxa in Parsimony Analyses of Morphology
Syst Biol, October 1, 2007; 56(5): 753 - 766.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
K. A. Cranston and B. Rannala
Summarizing a Posterior Distribution of Trees Using Agreement Subtrees
Syst Biol, August 1, 2007; 56(4): 578 - 590.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
J. A. Cotton and M. Wilkinson
Majority-Rule Supertrees
Syst Biol, June 1, 2007; 56(3): 445 - 452.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
O. Gauthier and F.-J. Lapointe
Seeing the Trees for the Network: Consensus, Information Content, and Superphylogenies
Syst Biol, April 1, 2007; 56(2): 345 - 355.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
M. M. McMahon and M. J. Sanderson
Phylogenetic Supermatrix Analysis of GenBank Sequences from 2228 Papilionoid Legumes
Syst Biol, October 1, 2006; 55(5): 818 - 836.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
M. Kennedy, B. R. Holland, R. D. Gray, and H. G. Spencer
Untangling Long Branches: Identifying Conflicting Phylogenetic Signals Using Spectral Analysis, Neighbor-Net, and Consensus Networks
Syst Biol, August 1, 2005; 54(4): 620 - 633.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
J. J. Flynn, J. A. Finarelli, S. Zehr, J. Hsu, and M. A. Nedbal
Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the Impact of Increased Sampling on Resolving Enigmatic Relationships
Syst Biol, April 1, 2005; 54(2): 317 - 337.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PaleobiologyHome page
Reassessing hominoid phylogeny: evaluating congruence in the morphological and temporal data
Paleobiology, December 1, 2004; 30(4): 614 - 651.



Home page
Infect. Immun.Home page
R. H. P. Law, P. M. Smooker, J. A. Irving, D. Piedrafita, R. Ponting, N. J. Kennedy, J. C. Whisstock, R. N. Pike, and T. W. Spithill
Cloning and Expression of the Major Secreted Cathepsin B-Like Protein from Juvenile Fasciola hepatica and Analysis of Immunogenicity following Liver Fluke Infection
Infect. Immun., December 1, 2003; 71(12): 6921 - 6932.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PaleobiologyHome page
Global lability, regional resolution, and majority-rule consensus bias
Paleobiology, June 1, 2001; 27(2): 254 - 261.



Home page
Genome ResHome page
J. A. Irving, R. N. Pike, A. M. Lesk, and J. C. Whisstock
Phylogeny of the Serpin Superfamily: Implications of Patterns of Amino Acid Conservation for Structure and Function
Genome Res., December 1, 2000; 10(12): 1845 - 1864.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



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.