Should phylogenetic models be trying to "fit an elephant"?

For the past two decades, there has been an ongoing debate within the plylogenetics community over whether model-based approaches for molecular systematics (such as maximum likelihood) should be preferred over the more traditional "maximum parsimony" approach. A recent simulation study by Kolaczkowski and Thornton has brought this debate into sharp focus. In this article, I discuss the significance of their findings and offer a prognosis on the implications for molecular phylogenetics. I believe that biochemistry and model selection have an important role in developing accurate phylogenetic approaches.

[1]  Faisal Ababneh,et al.  The biasing effect of compositional heterogeneity on phylogenetic estimates may be underestimated. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[2]  P. Lockhart,et al.  Substitutional bias confounds inference of cyanelle origins from sequence data , 1992, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[3]  Mike Steel,et al.  Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution , 1997 .

[4]  M Steel,et al.  Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. , 2000, Systematic biology.

[5]  Bryan Kolaczkowski,et al.  Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous , 2004, Nature.

[6]  M. Gouy,et al.  Inferring pattern and process: maximum-likelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  M. Steel,et al.  A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

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

[10]  A. Halpern,et al.  Evolutionary distances for protein-coding sequences: modeling site-specific residue frequencies. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

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

[13]  Edward Susko,et al.  Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1alpha phylogenies. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[14]  Elliott Sober,et al.  The contest between parsimony and likelihood. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[15]  C. Moorehead.  All rights reserved , 1997 .

[16]  M. Steel,et al.  Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[17]  H. Philippe,et al.  Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[18]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

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

[20]  M. A. Steel,et al.  Confidence in evolutionary trees from biological sequence data , 1993, Nature.

[21]  J. L. Jensen,et al.  Probabilistic models of DNA sequence evolution with context dependent rates of substitution , 2000, Advances in Applied Probability.

[22]  D. Posada,et al.  Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. , 2004, Systematic biology.