Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among the eukaryotes.

The application of the method of matrix representation (MRP) addresses several problems associated with reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among composite organisms such as the eukaryotes. By allowing multiple molecular-sequence and non-molecular data sets to be combined into a single, relatively compact matrix for joint analysis, MRP addresses problems associated with the depth, diversification and specialization of eukaryotic lineages. Characters whose distributions may have been affected by endosymbiotic lateral transfer can be identified by compatibility analysis of MRP-generated hybrid matrices. In conjunction with variant-filtering techniques, MRP can be used to map patterns of lateral transfer in a given phylogenetic tree. These applications are illustrated with molecular-sequence and non-molecular data sets for eukaryotes.

[1]  G. F. Estabrook,et al.  An algebraic analysis of cladistic characters , 1976, Discret. Math..

[2]  D. Mindell.  Phylogenetic consequences of symbioses: Eukarya and Eubacteria are not monophyletic taxa. , 1992, Bio Systems.

[3]  G. Nelson,et al.  Three-Area Statements: Standard Assumptions for Biogeographic Analysis , 1991 .

[4]  M. Benton.  The Unity of Evolutionary Biology , 1991 .

[5]  Joseph Felsenstein,et al.  Parsimony in Systematics: Biological and Statistical Issues , 1983 .

[6]  T. Meyer,et al.  Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence data for construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  M. Sogin,et al.  A NEW PHYLOGENY FOR CHROMOPHYTE ALGAE USING 16S‐LIKE RRNA SEQUENCES FROM MALLOMONAS PAPILLOSA (SYNUROPHYCEAE) AND TRIBONEMA AEQUALE (XANTHOPHYCEAE) 1 , 1991 .

[8]  M. Ragan.  Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. , 1992, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[9]  M. Ragan.  Ribosomal RNA and the major lines of evolution: a perspective. , 1988, Bio Systems.

[10]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  CONSENSUS CLADOGRAMS AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[11]  D. Hillis,et al.  Molecular Versus Morphological Approaches to Systematics , 1987 .

[12]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD OF PHYLOGENETIC INFERENCE FROM DNA SEQUENCE DATA , 1984 .

[13]  W. J. Quesne,et al.  A Method of Selection of Characters in Numerical Taxonomy , 1969 .

[14]  Henri Poincaré,et al.  Second Complément à l'Analysis Situs , 1900 .

[15]  D. Swofford.  When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent , 1991 .

[16]  A. D. Gordon.  Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves , 1986 .

[17]  B. Baum.  Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees , 1992 .

[18]  G. Brossier.  Piecewise hierarchical clustering , 1990 .

[19]  M. Ragan,et al.  Making Phylogenetic Sense of Biochemical and Morphological Diversity Among the Protists , 1991 .

[20]  F. McMorris,et al.  A Mathematical Foundation for the Analysis of Cladistic Character Compatibility , 1976 .

[21]  J. Doyle,et al.  Gene Trees and Species Trees: Molecular Systematics as One-Character Taxonomy , 1992 .

[22]  M. Ragan.  Biochemical pathways and the phylogeny of the eukaryotes. , 1989 .

[23]  M W Gray,et al.  The evolutionary origins of organelles. , 1989, Trends in genetics : TIG.