4.7 Article

Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 440-451

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.06.015

Keywords

long-branch attraction; maximum parsimony; maximum likelihood; phylogeny; metazoan rDNA; Felsenstein zone; inconsistency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although long-branch attraction (LBA) is frequently cited as the cause of anomalous phylogenetic groupings, few examples of LBA involving real sequence data are known. We have found several cases of probable LBA by analyzing subsamples from an alignment of 18S rDNA sequences for 133 metazoans. In one example, maximum parsimony analysis of sequences from two rotifers, a ctenophore, and a polychaete annelid resulted in strong support for a tree grouping two long-branch taxa (a rotifer and the ctenophore). Maximum-likelihood analysis of the same sequences yielded strong support for a more biologically reasonable rotifer monophyly tree. Attempts to break up long branches for problematic subsamples through increased taxon sampling reduced, but did not eliminate, LBA problems. Exhaustive analyses of all quartets for a subset of 50 sequences were performed in order to compare the performance of maximum likelihood, equal-weights parsimony, and two additional variants of parsimony; these methods do differ substantially in their rates of failure to recover trees consistent with well established, but highly unresolved phylogenies. Power analyses using simulations suggest that some incorrect inferences by maximum parsimony are due to statistical inconsistency and that when estimates of central branch lengths for certain quartets are very low, maximum-likelihood analyses have difficulty recovering accepted phylogenies even with large amounts of data. These examples demonstrate that LBA problems can occur in real data sets, and they provide an opportunity to investigate causes of incorrect inferences. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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