4.8 Article

Ultrafast Approximation for Phylogenetic Bootstrap

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1188-1195

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/mst024

关键词

phylogenetic inference; nonparametric bootstrap; tree reconstruction; maximum likelihood

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund-FWF [I760]
  2. EU EURATRANS consortium [HEALTH-F4-2010-241504]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I 760] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I760] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonparametric bootstrap has been a widely used tool in phylogenetic analysis to assess the clade support of phylogenetic trees. However, with the rapidly growing amount of data, this task remains a computational bottleneck. Recently, approximation methods such as the RAxML rapid bootstrap (RBS) and the Shimodaira-Hasegawa-like approximate likelihood ratio test have been introduced to speed up the bootstrap. Here, we suggest an ultrafast bootstrap approximation approach (UFBoot) to compute the support of phylogenetic groups in maximum likelihood (ML) based trees. To achieve this, we combine the resampling estimated log-likelihood method with a simple but effective collection scheme of candidate trees. We also propose a stopping rule that assesses the convergence of branch support values to automatically determine when to stop collecting candidate trees. UFBoot achieves a median speed up of 3.1 (range: 0.66-33.3) to 10.2 (range: 1.32-41.4) compared with RAxML RBS for real DNA and amino acid alignments, respectively. Moreover, our extensive simulations show that UFBoot is robust against moderate model violations and the support values obtained appear to be relatively unbiased compared with the conservative standard bootstrap. This provides a more direct interpretation of the bootstrap support. We offer an efficient and easy-to-use software (available at http://www.cibiv.at/software/iqtree) to perform the UFBoot analysis with ML tree inference.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据