Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees

Despite a century of evolutionary theory, only in the last few decades have clearly defined procedures for inferring phylogenies been stated. For discrete characters whose ancestral states are known, the prescriptions of Henning are well defined, but they are applicable only when there is no incompatibility between different characters. This limitation has led to the elaboration of a number of methods for dealing with such incompatibilities. One category consists of the parsimony methods, which choose that phylogeny on which the fewest changes of character state need be assumed. Another category consists of the compatibility methods, which choose that phylogeny which is perfectly compatible with the largest number of characters, irrespective of how many changes need be assumed in other characters. Other approaches include the use of phenetic clustering algorithms and methods fitting trees to similarity or distance matrices. Each method has a different set of implicit assumptions concerning the biology of the characters and the information available from the data. If the methods are considered in a statistical framework as different estimators of an unknow quantity (the phylogeny), these asseumptions are more clearly seen. Standard statistical approaches, such as maximum likelihood, can be used to obtain methods whose properties are known and for which one can determine the amount of uncertainty in the resulting estimates of the phylogeny. Although existing statistical models are highly oversimplified and do not reflect the complexity of evolutionary processes, it is by viewing the problem as a statistical one that we can place all these methods in common fremework, within which their behavior and assumptions can be compared. It is essential that we not adopt a single methods as a universal panacea, but that an attempt be made to understand the biological assumptions and statistical behavior of each method.

[1]  [Discussion on preceding papers]. , 1950, Helvetica medica acta.

[2]  R. Sokal,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO A PROBLEM IN CLASSIFICATION† , 1957, Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution.

[3]  T. Morrison-Scott,et al.  Principles of Animal Taxonomy , 1962, Nature.

[4]  H. Ross Principles of Numerical Taxonomy , 1964 .

[5]  L. H. Throckmorton Similarity versus relationship in Drosophila. , 1965, Systematic zoology.

[6]  E. Wilson A Consistency Test for Phylogenies Based on Contemporaneous Species , 1965 .

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

[8]  M. O. Dayhoff,et al.  Atlas of protein sequence and structure , 1965 .

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

[10]  The Validity of the “Consistency Test” for Phylogenetic Hypotheses , 1967 .

[11]  L. H. Throckmorton Concordance and discordance of taxonomic characters in Drosophila classification. , 1968, Systematic zoology.

[12]  J. Kirsch Serological data and phylogenetic inference: th problem of rates of change. , 1969, Systematic zoology.

[13]  J. Farris,et al.  Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans , 1969 .

[14]  A. Edwards,et al.  Estimation of the Branch Points of a Branching Diffusion Process , 1970 .

[15]  Arnold G. Kluge,et al.  A Numerical Approach to Phylogenetic Systematics , 1970 .

[16]  D. H. Colless The Phenogram as an Estimate of Phylogeny , 1970 .

[17]  R. Holmquist Theoretical foundations for a quantitative approach to paleogenetics. Part I: DNA. , 1971, Journal of molecular evolution.

[18]  G. Moore,et al.  Molecular Evolution in the Descent of Man , 1971, Nature.

[19]  J. Neyman MOLECULAR STUDIES OF EVOLUTION: A SOURCE OF NOVEL STATISTICAL PROBLEMS* , 1971 .

[20]  S. E. Dreyfus,et al.  The steiner problem in graphs , 1971, Networks.

[21]  G. Moore A mathematical model for the construction of cladograms , 1971 .

[22]  A. J. Gibbs,et al.  The Transition Matrix Method for Comparing Sequences; Its use in Describing and Classifying Proteins by their Amino Acid Sequences , 1971 .

[23]  L. Orgel,et al.  Biochemical Evolution , 1971, Nature.

[24]  K. Kidd,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis: concepts and methods. , 1971, American journal of human genetics.

[25]  M. Nei Interspecific Gene Differences and Evolutionary Time Estimated from Electrophoretic Data on Protein Identity , 1971, The American Naturalist.

[26]  Shi-Kuo Chang,et al.  The Generation of Minimal Trees with a Steiner Topology , 1972, JACM.

[27]  G. Moore,et al.  A method for constructing maximum parsimony ancestral amino acid sequences on a given network. , 1973, Journal of theoretical biology.

[28]  E. Thompson,et al.  The method of minimum evolution , 1973, Annals of human genetics.

[29]  G. Moore,et al.  An iterative approach from the standpoint of the additive hypothesis to the dendrogram problem posed by molecular data sets. , 1973, Journal of theoretical biology.

[30]  D. Sankoff,et al.  Evolution of 5S RNA and the non-randomness of base replacement. , 1973, Nature: New biology.

[31]  Joseph Felsenstein,et al.  Maximum Likelihood and Minimum-Steps Methods for Estimating Evolutionary Trees from Data on Discrete Characters , 1973 .

[32]  W. J. Quesne The Uniquely Evolved Character Concept and its Cladistic Application , 1974 .

[33]  R L Kashyap,et al.  Statistical estimation of parameters in a phylogenetic tree using a dynamic model of the substitutional process. , 1974, Journal of theoretical biology.

[34]  Response to the Paper of Dr. Moore , 1974 .

[35]  W. A. Beyer,et al.  A molecular sequence metric and evolutionary trees , 1974 .

[36]  A. Dobson Unrooted trees for numerical taxonomy , 1974, Journal of Applied Probability.

[37]  D. Sankoff,et al.  Locating the vertices of a Steiner tree in arbitrary space , 1975 .

[38]  G. Estabrook,et al.  A SIMPLE TEST FOR THE POSSIBLE SIMULTANEOUS EVOLUTIONARY DIVERGENCE OF TWO AMINO ACID POSITIONS , 1975 .

[39]  P. H. A. Sneath,et al.  Detecting Evolutionary Incompatibilities From Protein Sequences , 1975 .

[40]  G. Estabrook,et al.  An idealized concept of the true cladistic character , 1975 .

[41]  E. Wiley,et al.  Karl R. Popper, Systematics, and Classification: A Reply to Walter Bock and Other Evolutionary Taxonomists , 1975 .

[42]  A Piazza,et al.  Analysis of evolution: evolutionary rates, independence and treeness. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[43]  D. Sankoff Minimal Mutation Trees of Sequences , 1975 .

[44]  D. Read Primate Phylogeny, Neutral Mutations, and “Molecular Clocks” , 1975 .

[45]  M. F. Mickevich,et al.  Congruence Between Morphological and Allozyme Data in Evolutionary Inference and Character Evolution , 1976 .

[46]  G. Moore,et al.  Stochastic versus augmented maximum parsimony method for estimating superimposed mutations in the divergent evolution of protein sequences. Methods tested on cytochrome c amino acid sequences. , 1976, Journal of molecular biology.

[47]  W. A. Beyer,et al.  Some Biological Sequence Metrics , 1976 .

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

[49]  R. Chakraborty,et al.  Estimation of time of divergence from phylogenetic studies. , 1977, Canadian journal of genetics and cytology. Journal canadien de genetique et de cytologie.

[50]  G. Moore,et al.  Proof of the populous path algorithm for missing mutations in parsimony trees. , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[51]  G. Estabrook,et al.  An Application of Compatibility Analysis to the Blackiths' Data on Orthopteroid Insects , 1977 .

[52]  F. McMorris On the compatibility of binary qualitative taxonomic characters. , 1977, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[53]  A. Tversky,et al.  Additive similarity trees , 1977 .

[54]  W. A. Beyer,et al.  Additive evolutionary trees. , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[55]  David S. Johnson,et al.  The Rectilinear Steiner Tree Problem is NP Complete , 1977, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics.

[56]  Le Quesne,et al.  The Uniquely Evolved Character Concept , 1977 .

[57]  J. A. Cavender Taxonomy with confidence , 1978 .

[58]  C. W. Harper,et al.  Phylogenetic and Cladistic Hypotheses: A Debate , 1978 .

[59]  W. R. Anderson,et al.  An Estimate of Phylogenetic Relationships within the Genus Crusea (Rubiaceae) Using Character Compatibility Analysis , 1978 .

[60]  D. Hull THE LIMITS OF CLADISM , 1979 .

[61]  Further Remarks on the Parameter of Gene Duplication and Expression Events in Parsimony Reconstructions , 1979 .

[62]  L. Klotz,et al.  Calculation of evolutionary trees from sequence data. , 1979, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  George F. Estabrook,et al.  How to determine the compatibility of undirected character state trees , 1979 .

[64]  The Thirteenth Annual Numerical Taxonomy Conference , 1980 .

[65]  Techniques for the verification of minimal phylogenetic trees illustrated with ten mammalian haemoglobin sequences. , 1980, The Biochemical journal.

[66]  F. McMorris,et al.  When is one estimate of evolutionary relationships a refinement of another? , 1980 .

[67]  M. D. Hendy Establishing the minimality of phylogenetic trees from protein sequences , 1980 .

[68]  C. Meacham A probability measure for character compatibility , 1981 .

[69]  James A. Cavender Tests of phylogenetic hypotheses under generalized models , 1981 .

[70]  H. Wagner The minimum number of mutations in an evolutionary network. , 1981, Journal of theoretical biology.

[71]  R. Bland,et al.  The Allocation of Resources by Linear Programming , 1981 .

[72]  W. Li,et al.  Simple method for constructing phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  R. Graham,et al.  The steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete , 1982 .

[74]  A. Panchen The use of parsimony in testing phylogenetic hypotheses , 1982 .