Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined?

Advocates of conditional combination have argued that testing for incongruence between data partitions is an important step in data exploration. Unless the partitions have had distinct histories, as in horizontal gene transfer, incongruence means that one or more data support the wrong phylogeny. This study examines the relationship between incongruence and phylogenetic accuracy using three tests of incongruence. These tests were applied to pairs of mitochondrial DNA data partitions from two well-corroborated vertebrate phylogenies. Of the three tests, the most useful was the incongruence length difference test (ILD, also called the partition homogeneity test). This test distinguished between cases in which combining the data generally improved phylogenetic accuracy (P > 0.01) and cases in which accuracy of the combined data suffered relative to the individual partitions (P < 0.001). In contrast, in several cases, the Templeton and Rodrigo tests detected highly significant incongruence (P < 0.001) even though combining the incongruent partitions actually increased phylogenetic accuracy. All three tests identified cases in which improving the reconstruction model would improve the phylogenetic accuracy of the individual partitions.

[1]  F. Lutzoni,et al.  Phylogeny of lichen- and non-lichen-forming omphalinoid mushrooms and the utility of testing for combinability among multiple data sets. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[2]  C. Cunningham.  Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[3]  D. Faith,et al.  Random Cladistics, Version 3.0. , 1996 .

[4]  J. Sullivan.  Combining Data with Different Distributions of Among-Site Rate Variation , 1996 .

[5]  J. William,et al.  Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  John P. Huelsenbeck,et al.  A Likelihood Ratio Test to Detect Conflicting Phylogenetic Signal , 1996 .

[7]  N Takezaki,et al.  Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  R. Vilgalys,et al.  INTEGRATION OF MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR DATA SETS IN ESTIMATING FUNGAL PHYLOGENIES , 1995 .

[9]  K. Holsinger,et al.  Among-site rate variation and phylogenetic analysis of 12S rRNA in sigmodontine rodents. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  Junhyong Kim,et al.  Separate Versus Combined Analysis of Phylogenetic Evidence , 1995 .

[11]  K. Kjer,et al.  Use of rRNA secondary structure in phylogenetic studies to identify homologous positions: an example of alignment and data presentation from the frogs. , 1995, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[12]  M. P. Cummings,et al.  Sampling properties of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analysis. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[13]  Michael M. Miyamoto,et al.  TESTING SPECIES PHYLOGENIES AND PHYLOGENETIC METHODS WITH CONGRUENCE , 1995 .

[14]  B. Schierwater,et al.  Molecular Ecology and Evolution: Approaches and Applications , 1995, Experientia Supplementum.

[15]  Richard G. Olmstead,et al.  Combining Data in Phylogenetic Systematics: An Empirical Approach Using Three Molecular Data Sets in the Solanaceae , 1994 .

[16]  C. Bult,et al.  TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF INCONGRUENCE , 1994 .

[17]  K. E. Omland.  Character Congruence Between a Molecular and a Morphological Phylogeny for Dabbling Ducks (ANAS) , 1994 .

[18]  A. Graybeal.  Evaluating the Phylogenetic Utility of Genes: A Search for Genes Informative About Deep Divergences among Vertebrates , 1994 .

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

[20]  A. Larson.  The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics. , 1994, EXS.

[21]  J. Bull,et al.  Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis , 1993 .

[22]  A. Queiroz.  For Consensus (Sometimes) , 1993 .

[23]  Allen G. Rodrigo,et al.  A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree , 1993 .

[24]  R DeSalle,et al.  Alignment-ambiguous nucleotide sites and the exclusion of systematic data. , 1993, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[25]  S. Lanyon.  Phylogenetic frameworks: towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach , 1993 .

[26]  C. Marshall.  Substitution bias, weighted parsimony, and amniote phylogeny as inferred from 18S rRNA sequences. , 1992, Molecular biology and evolution.

[27]  D. Faith.  Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly , 1991 .

[28]  W. Fitch,et al.  Phylogeny determination using dynamically weighted parsimony method. , 1990, Methods in enzymology.

[29]  A. Kluge.  A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes) , 1989 .

[30]  D. Penny,et al.  The Use of Tree Comparison Metrics , 1985 .

[31]  A. R. Templeton,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC INFERENCE FROM RESTRICTION ENDONUCLEASE CLEAVAGE SITE MAPS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANS AND THE APES , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[32]  Joseph Felsenstein,et al.  A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility , 1981 .

[33]  J. Farris,et al.  The implications of congruence in Menidia , 1981 .

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