MBE Advance Access published online on November 4, 2008
Molecular Biology and Evolution, doi:10.1093/molbev/msn250
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Letter |
Choice of Topology Estimators in Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis
1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA, 785-864-3439
2 jeet{at}ku.edu
3 cwlinkem{at}ku.edu
Received for publication July 21, 2008. Revision received October 23, 2008. Accepted for publication October 29, 2008.
Wheeler and Pickett (2008) discuss two ways of summarizing the posterior probability distribution of a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, which they refer to as "topology-Bayes" and "clade-Bayes. They claim that the "clade-Bayes" approach leads to problems such as "exaggerated clade support, inconsistently biased priors, and the impossibility of topology hypothesis testing", which are not problems for the "topology-Bayes" approach. However, their argument for "topology-Bayes" over "clade-Bayes" is based on errors in the interpretation of summary statistics associated with Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. While there is a well-documented difference between the maximum posterior probability topology and the majority-rule consensus topology (the established terms for "topology-Bayes" and "clade-Bayes" summaries, respectively), both have a place in phylogenetic analysis. Choice of summarization strategy should be driven by choice of parameters that need to be estimated versus those to be marginalized given the evolutionary questions being asked or hypotheses being tested.
Key Words: Bayesian Phylogenetics Summaries Topology Estimators Support