Analysis of long branch extraction and long branch shortening

BackgroundLong branch attraction (LBA) is a problem that afflicts both the parsimony and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis techniques. Research has shown that parsimony is particularly vulnerable to inferring the wrong tree in Felsenstein topologies. The long branch extraction method is a procedure to detect a data set suffering from this problem so that Maximum Likelihood could be used instead of Maximum Parsimony.ResultsThe long branch extraction method has been well cited and used by many authors in their analysis but no strong validation has been performed as to its accuracy. We performed such an analysis by an extensive search of the branch length search space under two topologies of six taxa, a Felsenstein-like topology and Farris-like topology. We also examine a long branch shortening method.ConclusionsThe long branch extraction method seems to mask the majority of the search space rendering it ineffective as a detection method of LBA. A proposed alternative, the long branch shortening method, is also ineffective in predicting long branch attraction for all tree topologies.

[1]  J. Bergsten A review of long‐branch attraction , 2005, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[2]  D. Hillis,et al.  Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[3]  J. Huelsenbeck Performance of Phylogenetic Methods in Simulation , 1995 .

[4]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  SUCCESS OF PHYLOGENETIC METHODS IN THE FOUR-TAXON CASE , 1993 .

[5]  M. Siddall,et al.  Success of Parsimony in the Four‐Taxon Case: Long‐Branch Repulsion by Likelihood in the Farris Zone , 1998 .

[6]  M. P. Cummings,et al.  PAUP* Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) Version 4 , 2000 .

[7]  D. Swofford PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4.0b10 , 2002 .

[8]  M. Siddall,et al.  Long‐Branch Abstractions , 1999 .

[9]  R. Sokal,et al.  A METHOD FOR DEDUCING BRANCHING SEQUENCES IN PHYLOGENY , 1965 .

[10]  Reed A. Cartwright,et al.  DNA assembly with gaps (Dawg): simulating sequence evolution , 2005, Bioinform..

[11]  G. Serio,et al.  A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[12]  Pablo A. Goloboff,et al.  Parsimony, likelihood, and simplicity , 2003 .

[13]  A. Graybeal,et al.  Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? , 1998, Systematic biology.

[14]  J. S. Rogers,et al.  Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. , 2001, Systematic biology.

[15]  Diego Pol,et al.  Biases in Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony: A Simulation Approach to a 10-Taxon Case , 2001 .

[16]  J. Oliver,et al.  The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[17]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. , 1994, Science.

[18]  J. Felsenstein Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .

[19]  S. Tavaré Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences , 1986 .