Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context.

The use of molecular phylogenies to examine evolutionary questions has become commonplace with the automation of DNA sequencing and the availability of efficient computer programs to perform phylogenetic analyses. The application of computer simulation and likelihood ratio tests to evolutionary hypotheses represents a recent methodological development in this field. Likelihood ratio tests have enabled biologists to address many questions in evolutionary biology that have been difficult to resolve in the past, such as whether host-parasite systems are cospeciating and whether models of DNA substitution adequately explain observed sequences.

[1]  V. Georgiev.  Virology , 1955, Nature.

[2]  L. Cavalli-Sforza,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS: MODELS AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURES , 1967, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  J. Andel.  Sequential Analysis , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  J. L. King,et al.  Non-Darwinian evolution. , 1969, Science.

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

[6]  Daniel R. Brooks,et al.  Hennig's Parasitological Method: A Proposed Solution , 1981 .

[7]  B. Weir,et al.  Statistical Analysis of DNA Sequence Data. , 1984 .

[8]  J. Felsenstein.  Phylogenies and the Comparative Method , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[9]  J. Rice.  Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis , 1988 .

[10]  S. Nadler,et al.  Phylogenetic trees support the coevolution of parasites and their hosts , 1988, Nature.

[11]  J. Felsenstein.  Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. , 1988, Annual review of genetics.

[12]  Graham Bell,et al.  A Comparative Method , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[13]  James W. Archie,et al.  A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data , 1989 .

[14]  W. Maddison.  A METHOD FOR TESTING THE CORRELATED EVOLUTION OF TWO BINARY CHARACTERS: ARE GAINS OR LOSSES CONCENTRATED ON CERTAIN BRANCHES OF A PHYLOGENETIC TREE? , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  M. Pagel,et al.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1991 .

[16]  D. Dykhuizen,et al.  Recombination in Escherichia coli and the definition of biological species , 1991, Journal of bacteriology.

[17]  J. Mullins,et al.  Molecular Epidemiology of HIV Transmission in a Dental Practice , 1992, Science.

[18]  D. Penny.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1992 .

[19]  Z. Yang,et al.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. , 1993, Molecular biology and evolution.

[20]  A. von Haeseler,et al.  A stochastic model for the evolution of autocorrelated DNA sequences. , 1994, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[21]  J. Felsenstein,et al.  A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[22]  G. Myers,et al.  A novel hantavirus associated with an outbreak of fatal respiratory disease in the southwestern United States: evolutionary relationships to known hantaviruses , 1994, Journal of virology.

[23]  C. Peters,et al.  Naturally occurring Sin Nombre virus genetic reassortants. , 1995, Virology.

[24]  A Rzhetsky,et al.  Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[25]  Z. Yang,et al.  On the use of nucleic acid sequences to infer early branchings in the tree of life. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[27]  R. Page,et al.  Molecular phylogenies and host-parasite cospeciation: gophers and lice as a model system. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[28]  F. Maytag.  Evolution , 1996, Arch. Mus. Informatics.

[29]  David L. Swofford,et al.  THE TOPOLOGY-DEPENDENT PERMUTATION TEST FOR MONOPHYLY DOES NOT TEST FOR MONOPHYLY , 1996 .

[30]  Roderic D. M. Page,et al.  TEMPORAL CONGRUENCE REVISITED : COMPARISON OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SEQUENCE DIVERGENCE IN COSPECIATING POCKET GOPHERS AND THEIR CHEWING LICE , 1996 .

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

[32]  D. Hibbett,et al.  Phylogenetic evidence for horizontal transmission of group I introns in the nuclear ribosomal DNA of mushroom-forming fungi. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[33]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  A Likelihood-Ratio Test of Monophyly , 1996 .

[34]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[35]  Ziheng Yang,et al.  STATISTICAL TESTS OF HOST‐PARASITE COSPECIATION , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.