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 (58)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DeBry, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DeBry, R. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 9, 537-551, Copyright © 1992 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The consistency of several phylogeny-inference methods under varying evolutionary rates

RW DeBry
Department of Chemistry, Florida State University, Tallahassee 32306.

A phylogenetic method is a consistent estimator of phylogeny if and only if it is guaranteed to give the correct tree, given that sufficient (possibly infinite) independent data are examined. The following methods are examined for consistency: UPGMA (unweighted pair- group method, averages), NJ (neighbor joining), MF (modified Farris), and P (parsimony). A two-parameter model of nucleotide sequence substitution is used, and the expected distribution of character states is calculated. Without perfect correction for superimposed substitutions, all four methods may be inconsistent if there is but one branch evolving at a faster rate than the other branches. Partial correction of observed distances improves the robustness of the NJ method to rate variation, and perfect correction makes the NJ method a consistent estimator for all combinations of rates that were examined. The sensitivity of all the methods to unequal rates varies over a wide range, so relative-rate tests are unlikely to be a reliable guide for accepting or rejecting phylogenies based on parsimony analysis.
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
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.Home page
F. R. Tabita, T. E. Hanson, H. Li, S. Satagopan, J. Singh, and S. Chan
Function, Structure, and Evolution of the RubisCO-Like Proteins and Their RubisCO Homologs
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., December 1, 2007; 71(4): 576 - 599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
E. Susko, Y. Inagaki, and A. J. Roger
On Inconsistency of the Neighbor-Joining, Least Squares, and Minimum Evolution Estimation When Substitution Processes Are Incorrectly Modeled
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2004; 21(9): 1629 - 1642.
[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.