Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on October 31, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary Material
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/1/188    most recent
msh014v1
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 (144)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Simmons, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Miya, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Simmons, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Miya, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(1):188-199. 2004
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh014
© 2004 by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. ISSN: 0737-4038

How Meaningful Are Bayesian Support Values?

Mark P. Simmons*, Kurt M. Pickett{dagger},1 and Masaki Miya{ddagger}

* Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
{dagger} Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University, Columbus
{ddagger} Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum and Institute, Chiba, Japan

E-mail: psimmons{at}lamar.colostate.edu.

In this study, we used an empirical example based on 100 mitochondrial genomes from higher teleost fishes to compare the accuracy of parsimony-based jackknife values with Bayesian support values. Phylogenetic analyses of 366 partitions, using differential taxon and character sampling from the entire data matrix of 100 taxa and 7,990 characters, were performed for both phylogenetic methods. The tree topology and branch-support values from each partition were compared with the tree inferred from all taxa and characters. Using this approach, we quantified the accuracy of the branch-support values assigned by the jackknife and Bayesian methods, with respect to each of 15 basal clades. In comparing the jackknife and Bayesian methods, we found that (1) both measures of support differ significantly from an ideal support index; (2) the jackknife underestimated support values; (3) the Bayesian method consistently overestimated support; (4) the magnitude by which Bayesian values overestimate support exceeds the magnitude by which the jackknife underestimates support; and (5) both methods performed poorly when taxon sampling was increased and character sampling was not increases. These results indicate that (1) the higher Bayesian support values are inappropriate (in magnitude), and (2) Bayesian support values should not be interpreted as probabilities that clades are correctly resolved. We advocate the continued use of the relatively conservative bootstrap and jackknife approaches to estimating branch support rather than the more extreme overestimates provided by the Markov Chain Monte Carlo–based Bayesian methods.

Key Words: branch support • bootstrap support • jackknife support • posterior probabilities • ayesian phylogenetic inference • parsimony


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
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
K. J. Wurdack and C. C. Davis
Malpighiales phylogenetics: Gaining ground on one of the most recalcitrant clades in the angiosperm tree of life
Am. J. Botany, August 1, 2009; 96(8): 1551 - 1570.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
Z. Yang
Empirical evaluation of a prior for Bayesian phylogenetic inference
Phil Trans R Soc B, December 27, 2008; 363(1512): 4031 - 4039.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
A. Dornburg, F. Santini, and M. E. Alfaro
The Influence of Model Averaging on Clade Posteriors: An Example Using the Triggerfishes (Family Balistidae)
Syst Biol, December 1, 2008; 57(6): 905 - 919.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J MOLLUS STUDHome page
P. J. Krug, M. S. Morley, J. Asif, L. L. Hellyar, and W. M. Blom
Molecular confirmation of species status for the rare cephalaspidean Melanochlamys lorrainae (Rudman, 1968), and comparison with its sister species M. cylindrica Cheeseman, 1881
J. Mollus. Stud., August 1, 2008; 74(3): 267 - 276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
W. C. Wheeler and K. M. Pickett
Topology-Bayes versus Clade-Bayes in Phylogenetic Analysis
Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2008; 25(2): 447 - 453.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J MOLLUS STUDHome page
J. Strugnell and M. K. Nishiguchi
MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY OF COLEOID CEPHALOPODS (MOLLUSCA: CEPHALOPODA) INFERRED FROM THREE MITOCHONDRIAL AND SIX NUCLEAR LOCI: A COMPARISON OF ALIGNMENT, IMPLIED ALIGNMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODS
J. Mollus. Stud., November 7, 2007; (2007) eym038v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
K. K. M. Kulju, S. E. C. Sierra, S. G. A. Draisma, R. Samuel, and P. C. v. Welzen
Molecular phylogeny of Macaranga, Mallotus, and related genera (Euphorbiaceae s.s.): insights from plastid and nuclear DNA sequence data
Am. J. Botany, October 1, 2007; 94(10): 1726 - 1743.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
B. M. Hallstrom, M. Kullberg, M. A. Nilsson, and A. Janke
Phylogenomic Data Analyses Provide Evidence that Xenarthra and Afrotheria Are Sister Groups
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2007; 24(9): 2059 - 2068.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
B. Kolaczkowski and J. W. Thornton
Effects of Branch Length Uncertainty on Bayesian Posterior Probabilities for Phylogenetic Hypotheses
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2007; 24(9): 2108 - 2118.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
Z. Yang
Fair-Balance Paradox, Star-tree Paradox, and Bayesian Phylogenetics
Mol. Biol. Evol., August 1, 2007; 24(8): 1639 - 1655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J MOLLUS STUDHome page
T. Nakano and T. Ozawa
WORLDWIDE PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF LIMPETS OF THE ORDER PATELLOGASTROPODA: MOLECULAR, MORPHOLOGICAL AND PALAEONTOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
J. Mollus. Stud., March 19, 2007; (2007) eym001v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
M. E. Mort, J. K. Archibald, C. P. Randle, N. D. Levsen, T. R. O'Leary, K. Topalov, C. M. Wiegand, and D. J. Crawford
Inferring phylogeny at low taxonomic levels: utility of rapidly evolving cpDNA and nuclear ITS loci
Am. J. Botany, February 1, 2007; 94(2): 173 - 183.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
R. J. McKenzie, E. M. Muller, A. K. W. Skinner, P. O. Karis, and N. P. Barker
Phylogenetic relationships and generic delimitation in subtribe Arctotidinae (Asteraceae: Arctotideae) inferred by DNA sequence data from ITS and five chloroplast regions
Am. J. Botany, August 1, 2006; 93(8): 1222 - 1235.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
M. Anisimova and O. Gascuel
Approximate Likelihood-Ratio Test for Branches: A Fast, Accurate, and Powerful Alternative
Syst Biol, August 1, 2006; 55(4): 539 - 552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
B. Svennblad, P. Erixon, B. Oxelman, and T. Britton
Fundamental Differences Between the Methods of Maximum Likelihood and Maximum Posterior Probability in Phylogenetics
Syst Biol, February 1, 2006; 55(1): 116 - 121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
M. J. Phillips, P. A. McLenachan, C. Down, G. C. Gibb, and D. Penny
Combined Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences Resolve the Interrelations of the Major Australasian Marsupial Radiations
Syst Biol, February 1, 2006; 55(1): 122 - 137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
C. P. Randle and K. M. Pickett
Are Nonuniform Clade Priors Important in Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis? A Response to Brandley et al.
Syst Biol, February 1, 2006; 55(1): 147 - 151.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
D. W. Weisrock, L. J. Harmon, and A. Larson
Resolving Deep Phylogenetic Relationships in Salamanders: Analyses of Mitochondrial and Nuclear Genomic Data
Syst Biol, October 1, 2005; 54(5): 758 - 777.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 MycologiaHome page
K. M. Kim, Y.-G. Yoon, and H. S. Jung
Evaluation of the monophyly of Fomitopsis using parsimony and MCMC methods
Mycologia, July 1, 2005; 97(4): 812 - 822.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
S. E. Abdel-Ghany, I. S. Day, M. P. Simmons, P. Kugrens, and A. S.N. Reddy
Origin and Evolution of Kinesin-Like Calmodulin-Binding Protein
Plant Physiology, July 1, 2005; 138(3): 1711 - 1722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc R Soc BHome page
C. E Cook, Q. Yue, and M. Akam
Mitochondrial genomes suggest that hexapods and crustaceans are mutually paraphyletic
Proc R Soc B, June 22, 2005; 272(1569): 1295 - 1304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
Z. Yang and B. Rannala
Branch-Length Prior Influences Bayesian Posterior Probability of Phylogeny
Syst Biol, June 1, 2005; 54(3): 455 - 470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Syst BiolHome page
B. R. Holland, F. Delsuc, V. Moulton, and A. Baker
Visualizing Conflicting Evolutionary Hypotheses in Large Collections of Trees: Using Consensus Networks to Study the Origins of Placentals and Hexapods
Syst Biol, February 1, 2005; 54(1): 66 - 76.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Biol EvolHome page
D. J. Taylor and W. H. Piel
An Assessment of Accuracy, Error, and Conflict with Support Values from Genome-Scale Phylogenetic Data
Mol. Biol. Evol., August 1, 2004; 21(8): 1534 - 1537.
[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.