Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 (44)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, C. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Cunningham, C. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:394-405 (2002)
© 2002 Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution

The Effects of Nucleotide Substitution Model Assumptions on Estimates of Nonparametric Bootstrap Support

Thomas R. Buckley and Clifford W. Cunningham

Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

The use of parameter-rich substitution models in molecular phylogenetics has been criticized on the basis that these models can cause a reduction both in accuracy and in the ability to discriminate among competing topologies. We have explored the relationship between nucleotide substitution model complexity and nonparametric bootstrap support under maximum likelihood (ML) for six data sets for which the true relationships are known with a high degree of certainty. We also performed equally weighted maximum parsimony analyses in order to assess the effects of ignoring branch length information during tree selection. We observed that maximum parsimony gave the lowest mean estimate of bootstrap support for the correct set of nodes relative to the ML models for every data set except one. For several data sets, we established that the exact distribution used to model among-site rate variation was critical for a successful phylogenetic analysis. Site-specific rate models were shown to perform very poorly relative to gamma and invariables sites models for several of the data sets most likely because of the gross underestimation of branch lengths. The invariable sites model also performed poorly for several data sets where this model had a poor fit to the data, suggesting that addition of the gamma distribution can be critical. Estimates of bootstrap support for the correct nodes often increased under gamma and invariable sites models relative to equal rates models. Our observations are contrary to the prediction that such models cause reduced confidence in phylogenetic hypotheses. Our results raise several issues regarding the process of model selection, and we briefly discuss model selection uncertainty and the role of sensitivity analyses in molecular phylogenetics.


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
D. Posada
jModelTest: Phylogenetic Model Averaging
Mol. Biol. Evol., July 1, 2008; 25(7): 1253 - 1256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
R. Burri, H. N. Hirzel, N. Salamin, A. Roulin, and L. Fumagalli
Evolutionary Patterns of MHC Class II B in Owls and Their Implications for the Understanding of Avian MHC Evolution
Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2008; 25(6): 1180 - 1191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
D. C. Marshall, C. Simon, and T. R. Buckley
Accurate Branch Length Estimation in Partitioned Bayesian Analyses Requires Accommodation of Among-Partition Rate Variation and Attention to Branch Length Priors
Syst Biol, December 1, 2006; 55(6): 993 - 1003.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
M. E. Alfaro and J. P. Huelsenbeck
Comparative Performance of Bayesian and AIC-Based Measures of Phylogenetic Model Uncertainty
Syst Biol, February 1, 2006; 55(1): 89 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
B. Shapiro, A. Rambaut, and A. J. Drummond
Choosing Appropriate Substitution Models for the Phylogenetic Analysis of Protein-Coding Sequences
Mol. Biol. Evol., January 1, 2006; 23(1): 7 - 9.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
T. N. Engstrom, H. B. Shaffer, and W. P. McCord
Multiple Data Sets, High Homoplasy, and the Phylogeny of Softshell Turtles (Testudines: Trionychidae)
Syst Biol, October 1, 2004; 53(5): 693 - 710.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
D. Posada and T. R. Buckley
Model Selection and Model Averaging in Phylogenetics: Advantages of Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Approaches Over Likelihood Ratio Tests
Syst Biol, October 1, 2004; 53(5): 793 - 808.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
T. A. Castoe, T. M. Doan, and C. L. Parkinson
Data Partitions and Complex Models in Bayesian Analysis: The Phylogeny of Gymnophthalmid Lizards
Syst Biol, June 1, 2004; 53(3): 448 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
K. M. Kjer
Aligned 18S and Insect Phylogeny
Syst Biol, June 1, 2004; 53(3): 506 - 514.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
B. N. Danforth, S. G. Brady, S. D. Sipes, and A. Pearson
Single-Copy Nuclear Genes Recover Cretaceous-Age Divergences in Bees
Syst Biol, April 1, 2004; 53(2): 309 - 326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
M. D. Sorenson, E. Oneal, J. Garcia-Moreno, and D. P. Mindell
More Taxa, More Characters: The Hoatzin Problem Is Still Unresolved
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2003; 20(9): 1484 - 1498.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
C. J. Douady, F. Delsuc, Y. Boucher, W. F. Doolittle, and E. J. P. Douzery
Comparison of Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Bootstrap Measures of Phylogenetic Reliability
Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2003; 20(2): 248 - 254.
[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.