4.7 Review

Coalescent methods for estimating phylogenetic trees

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 320-328

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.05.033

Keywords

Coalescent model; Molecular clock; Phylogenomics; Bayesian statistics; Maximum likelihood

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 0743616]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We review recent models to estimate phylogenetic trees under the multispecies coalescent. Although the distinction between gene trees and species trees has come to the fore of phylogenetics, only recently have methods been developed that explicitly estimate species trees. Of the several factors that can cause gene tree heterogeneity and discordance with the species tree, deep coalescence due to random genetic drift in branches of the species tree has been modeled most thoroughly. Bayesian approaches to estimating species trees utilizes two likelihood functions, one of which has been widely used in traditional phylogenetics and involves the model of nucleotide substitution, and the second of which is less familiar to phylogeneticists and involves the probability distribution of gene trees given a species tree. Other recent parametric and nonparametric methods for estimating species trees involve parsimony criteria, summary statistics, supertree and consensus methods. Species tree approaches are an appropriate goal for systematics, appear to work well in some cases where concatenation can be misleading, and suggest that sampling many independent loci will be paramount. Such methods can also be challenging to implement because of the complexity of the models and computational time. In addition, further elaboration of the simplest of coalescent models will be required to incorporate commonly known issues such as deviation from the molecular clock, gene flow and other genetic forces. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available