Skip Navigation


MBE Advance Access originally published online on July 27, 2005
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2005 22(11):2257-2264; doi:10.1093/molbev/msi224
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/11/2257    most recent
msi224v1
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 (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hollich, V.
Right arrow Articles by Sonnhammer, E. L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hollich, V.
Right arrow Articles by Sonnhammer, E. L. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Research Article

Assessment of Protein Distance Measures and Tree-Building Methods for Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction

Volker Hollich*, Lena Milchert*, Lars Arvestad{dagger} and Erik L. L. Sonnhammer*

* Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; and {dagger} Stockholm Bioinformatics Center, Albanova, Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

E-mail: volker.hollich{at}cgb.ki.se.

Distance-based methods are popular for reconstructing evolutionary trees of protein sequences, mainly because of their speed and generality. A number of variants of the classical neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm have been proposed, as well as a number of methods to estimate protein distances. We here present a large-scale assessment of performance in reconstructing the correct tree topology for the most popular algorithms. The programs BIONJ, FastME, Weighbor, and standard NJ were run using 12 distance estimators, producing 48 tree-building/distance estimation method combinations. These were evaluated on a test set based on real trees taken from 100 Pfam families. Each tree was used to generate multiple sequence alignments with the ROSE program using three evolutionary models. The accuracy of each method was analyzed as a function of both sequence divergence and location in the tree. We found that BIONJ produced the overall best results, although the average accuracy differed little between the tree-building methods (normally less than 1%). A noticeable trend was that FastME performed poorer than the rest on long branches. Weighbor was several orders of magnitude slower than the other programs. Larger differences were observed when using different distance estimators. Protein-adapted Jukes-Cantor and Kimura distance correction produced clearly poorer results than the other methods, even worse than uncorrected distances. We also assessed the recently developed Scoredist measure, which performed equally well as more complex methods.

Key Words: protein distance estimation • phylogenetic tree reconstruction • neighbor-joining


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




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.