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 (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosenberg, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rosenberg, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Kumar, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution 18:1823-1827 (2001)
© 2001 Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution

Traditional Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods Reconstruct Shallow and Deep Evolutionary Relationships Equally Well

Michael S. Rosenberg and Sudhir Kumar

Department of Biology, Arizona State University

The wealth of data available for molecular phylogenetic analyses is expanding at an exponential pace. As data sets have become larger, it has become increasingly critical to understand the advantages and disadvantages of using various phylogenetic inference methods. Four inference methods based on three optimization criteria are commonly used to reconstruct evolutionary history from molecular data: neighbor joining (NJ), minimum evolution (ME), maximum parsimony (MP), and maximum likelihood (ML). The overall efficiency and performance of these methods in reconstructing the true tree is known to vary with substitution rate, transition-transversion ratio, and sequence divergence (Miyamoto and Cracraft 1991Citation ; Nei and Kumar 2000Citation ).

Computer simulation has proven to be an excellent means of assessing the performance of tree-building methods (reviewed in Nei and Kumar 2000Citation , chapter 9). It can be used to examine the overall performance of a method or specific aspects of its performance (e.g., Hillis 1996Citation . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

References


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
M. S. Rosenberg and S. Kumar
Heterogeneity of Nucleotide Frequencies Among Evolutionary Lineages and Phylogenetic Inference
Mol. Biol. Evol., April 1, 2003; 20(4): 610 - 621.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
M. S. Rosenberg and S. Kumar
Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference
PNAS, August 23, 2001; (2001) 191248498.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
M. S. Rosenberg and S. Kumar
Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference
PNAS, September 11, 2001; 98(19): 10751 - 10756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]