Branch-length prior influences Bayesian posterior probability of phylogeny

The Bayesian method for estimating species phylogenies from molecular sequence data provides an attractive alternative to maximum likelihood with nonparametric bootstrap due to the easy interpretation of posterior probabilities for trees and to availability of efficient computational algorithms. However, for many data sets it produces extremely high posterior probabilities, sometimes for apparently incorrect clades. Here we use both computer simulation and empirical data analysis to examine the effect of the prior model for internal branch lengths. We found that posterior probabilities for trees and clades are sensitive to the prior for internal branch lengths, and priors assuming long internal branches cause high posterior probabilities for trees. In particular, uniform priors with high upper bounds bias Bayesian clade probabilities in favor of extreme values. We discuss possible remedies to the problem, including empirical and full Bayesian methods and subjective procedures suggested in Bayesian hypothesis testing. Our results also suggest that the bootstrap proportion and Bayesian posterior probability are different measures of accuracy, and that the bootstrap proportion, if interpreted as the probability that the clade is true, can be either too liberal or too conservative.     

Robustness of compound Dirichlet priors for Bayesian inference of branch lengths

We modified the phylogenetic program MrBayes 3.1.2 to incorporate the compound Dirichlet priors for branch lengths proposed recently by Rannala, Zhu, and Yang (2012. Tail paradox, partial identifiability and influential priors in Bayesian branch length inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29:325-335.) as a solution to the problem of branch-length overestimation in Bayesian phylogenetic inference. The compound Dirichlet prior specifies a fairly diffuse prior on the tree length (the sum of branch lengths) and uses a Dirichlet distribution to partition the tree length into branch lengths. Six problematic data sets originally analyzed by Brown, Hedtke, Lemmon, and Lemmon (2010. When trees grow too long: investigating the causes of highly inaccurate Bayesian branch-length estimates. Syst. Biol. 59:145-161) are reanalyzed using the modified version of MrBayes to investigate properties of Bayesian branch-length estimation using the new priors. While the default exponential priors for branch lengths produced extremely long trees, the compound Dirichlet priors produced posterior estimates that are much closer to the maximum likelihood estimates. Furthermore, the posterior tree lengths were quite robust to changes in the parameter values in the compound Dirichlet priors, for example, when the prior mean of tree length changed over several orders of magnitude. Our results suggest that the compound Dirichlet priors may be useful for correcting branch-length overestimation in phylogenetic analyses of empirical data sets.     

Is there a star tree paradox?

Concerns have been raised that posterior probabilities on phylogenetic trees can be unreliable when the true tree is unresolved or has very short internal branches, because existing methods for Bayesian phylogenetic analysis do not explicitly evaluate unresolved trees. Two recent papers have proposed that evaluating only resolved trees results in a "star tree paradox": when the true tree is unresolved or close to it, posterior probabilities were predicted to become increasingly unpredictable as sequence length grows, resulting in inflated confidence in one resolved tree or another and an increasing risk of false-positive inferences. Here we show that this is not the case; existing Bayesian methods do not lead to an inflation of statistical confidence, provided the evolutionary model is correct and uninformative priors are assumed. Posterior probabilities do not become increasingly unpredictable with increasing sequence length, and they exhibit conservative type I error rates, leading to a low rate of false-positive inferences. With infinite data, posterior probabilities give equal support for all resolved trees, and the rate of false inferences falls to zero. We conclude that there is no star tree paradox caused by not sampling unresolved trees.     

Tail paradox, partial identifiability, and influential priors in Bayesian branch length inference

Recent studies have observed that Bayesian analyses of sequence data sets using the program MrBayes sometimes generate extremely large branch lengths, with posterior credibility intervals for the tree length (sum of branch lengths) excluding the maximum likelihood estimates. Suggested explanations for this phenomenon include the existence of multiple local peaks in the posterior, lack of convergence of the chain in the tail of the posterior, mixing problems, and misspecified priors on branch lengths. Here, we analyze the behavior of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms when the chain is in the tail of the posterior distribution and note that all these phenomena can occur. In Bayesian phylogenetics, the likelihood function approaches a constant instead of zero when the branch lengths increase to infinity. The flat tail of the likelihood can cause poor mixing and undue influence of the prior. We suggest that the main cause of the extreme branch length estimates produced in many Bayesian analyses is the poor choice of a default prior on branch lengths in current Bayesian phylogenetic programs. The default prior in MrBayes assigns independent and identical distributions to branch lengths, imposing strong (and unreasonable) assumptions about the tree length. The problem is exacerbated by the strong correlation between the branch lengths and parameters in models of variable rates among sites or among site partitions. To resolve the problem, we suggest two multivariate priors for the branch lengths (called compound Dirichlet priors) that are fairly diffuse and demonstrate their utility in the special case of branch length estimation on a star phylogeny. Our analysis highlights the need for careful thought in the specification of high-dimensional priors in Bayesian analyses.     

The devil in the details: interactions between the branch-length prior and likelihood model affect node support and branch lengths in the phylogeny of the Psoraceae

In popular use of Bayesian phylogenetics, a default branch-length prior is almost universally applied without knowing how a different prior would have affected the outcome. We performed Bayesian and maximum likelihood (ML) inference of phylogeny based on empirical nucleotide sequence data from a family of lichenized ascomycetes, the Psoraceae, the morphological delimitation of which has been controversial. We specifically assessed the influence of the combination of Bayesian branch-length prior and likelihood model on the properties of the Markov chain Monte Carlo tree sample, including node support, branch lengths, and taxon stability. Data included two regions of the mitochondrial ribosomal RNA gene, the internal transcribed spacer region of the nuclear ribosomal RNA gene, and the protein-coding largest subunit of RNA polymerase II. Data partitioning was performed using Bayes' factors, whereas the best-fitting model of each partition was selected using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Given the data and model, short Bayesian branch-length priors generate higher numbers of strongly supported nodes as well as short and topologically similar trees sampled from parts of tree space that are largely unexplored by the ML bootstrap. Long branch-length priors generate fewer strongly supported nodes and longer and more dissimilar trees that are sampled mostly from inside the range of tree space sampled by the ML bootstrap. Priors near the ML distribution of branch lengths generate the best marginal likelihood and the highest frequency of "rogue" (unstable) taxa. The branch-length prior was shown to interact with the likelihood model. Trees inferred under complex partitioned models are more affected by the stretching effect of the branch-length prior. Fewer nodes are strongly supported under a complex model given the same branch-length prior. Irrespective of model, internal branches make up a larger proportion of total tree length under the shortest branch-length priors compared with longer priors. Relative effects on branch lengths caused by the branch-length prior can be problematic to downstream phylogenetic comparative methods making use of the branch lengths. Furthermore, given the same branch-length prior, trees are on average more dissimilar under a simple unpartitioned model compared with a more complex partitioned models. The distribution of ML branch lengths was shown to better fit a gamma or Pareto distribution than an exponential one. Model adequacy tests indicate that the best-fitting model selected by the BIC is insufficient for describing data patterns in 5 of 8 partitions. More general substitution models are required to explain the data in three of these partitions, one of which also requires nonstationarity. The two mitochondrial ribosomal RNA gene partitions need heterotachous models. We found no significant correlations between, on the one hand, the amount of ambiguous data or the smallest branch-length distance to another taxon and, on the other hand, the topological stability of individual taxa. Integrating over several exponentially distributed means under the best-fitting model, node support for the family Psoraceae, including Psora, Protoblastenia, and the Micarea sylvicola group, is approximately 0.96. Support for the genus Psora is distinctly lower, but we found no evidence to contradict the current classification.     

The prior probabilities of phylogenetic trees

Bayesian methods have become among the most popular methods in phylogenetics, but theoretical opposition to this methodology remains. After providing an introduction to Bayesian theory in this context, I attempt to tackle the problem mentioned most often in the literature: the “problem of the priors”—how to assign prior probabilities to tree hypotheses. I first argue that a recent objection—that an appropriate assignment of priors is impossible—is based on a misunderstanding of what ignorance and bias are. I then consider different methods of assigning prior probabilities to trees. I argue that priors need to be derived from an understanding of how distinct taxa have evolved and that the appropriate evolutionary model is captured by the Yule birth–death process. This process leads to a well-known statistical distribution over trees. Though further modifications may be necessary to model more complex aspects of the branching process, they must be modifications to parameters in an underlying Yule model. Ignoring these Yule priors commits a fallacy leading to mistaken inferences both about the trees themselves and about macroevolutionary processes more generally.     

Empirical evaluation of a prior for Bayesian phylogenetic inference

The Bayesian method of phylogenetic inference often produces high posterior probabilities (PPs) for trees or clades, even when the trees are clearly incorrect. The problem appears to be mainly due to large sizes of molecular datasets and to the large-sample properties of Bayesian model selection and its sensitivity to the prior when several of the models under comparison are nearly equally correct (or nearly equally wrong) and are of the same dimension. A previous suggestion to alleviate the problem is to let the internal branch lengths in the tree become increasingly small in the prior with the increase in the data size so that the bifurcating trees are increasingly star-like. In particular, if the internal branch lengths are assigned the exponential prior, the prior mean mu0 should approach zero faster than 1/square root n but more slowly than 1/n, where n is the sequence length. This paper examines the usefulness of this data size-dependent prior using a dataset of the mitochondrial protein-coding genes from the baleen whales, with the prior mean fixed at mu0=0.1n(-2/3). In this dataset, phylogeny reconstruction is sensitive to the assumed evolutionary model, species sampling and the type of data (DNA or protein sequences), but Bayesian inference using the default prior attaches high PPs for conflicting phylogenetic relationships. The data size-dependent prior alleviates the problem to some extent, giving weaker support for unstable relationships. This prior may be useful in reducing apparent conflicts in the results of Bayesian analysis or in making the method less sensitive to model violations.     

Strange bayes indeed: uniform topological priors imply non-uniform clade priors

While Bayesian analysis has become common in phylogenetics, the effects of topological prior probabilities on tree inference have not been investigated. In Bayesian analyses, the prior probability of topologies is almost always considered equal for all possible trees, and clade support is calculated from the majority rule consensus of the approximated posterior distribution of topologies. These uniform priors on tree topologies imply non-uniform prior probabilities of clades, which are dependent on the number of taxa in a clade as well as the number of taxa in the analysis. As such, uniform topological priors do not model ignorance with respect to clades. Here, we demonstrate that Bayesian clade support, bootstrap support, and jackknife support from 17 empirical studies are significantly and positively correlated with non-uniform clade priors resulting from uniform topological priors. Further, we demonstrate that this effect disappears for bootstrap and jackknife when data sets are free from character conflict, but remains pronounced for Bayesian clade supports, regardless of tree shape. Finally, we propose the use of a Bayes factor to account for the fact that uniform topological priors do not model ignorance with respect to clade probability.     

Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models

What does the posterior probability of a phylogenetic tree mean?This simulation study shows that Bayesian posterior probabilities have the meaning that is typically ascribed to them; the posterior probability of a tree is the probability that the tree is correct, assuming that the model is correct. At the same time, the Bayesian method can be sensitive to model misspecification, and the sensitivity of the Bayesian method appears to be greater than the sensitivity of the nonparametric bootstrap method (using maximum likelihood to estimate trees). Although the estimates of phylogeny obtained by use of the method of maximum likelihood or the Bayesian method are likely to be similar, the assessment of the uncertainty of inferred trees via either bootstrapping (for maximum likelihood estimates) or posterior probabilities (for Bayesian estimates) is not likely to be the same. We suggest that the Bayesian method be implemented with the most complex models of those currently available, as this should reduce the chance that the method will concentrate too much probability on too few trees.     

Measures of clade confidence do not correlate with accuracy of phylogenetic trees

Metrics of phylogenetic tree reliability, such as parametric bootstrap percentages or Bayesian posterior probabilities, represent internal measures of the topological reproducibility of a phylogenetic tree, while the recently introduced aLRT (approximate likelihood ratio test) assesses the likelihood that a branch exists on a maximum-likelihood tree. Although those values are often equated with phylogenetic tree accuracy, they do not necessarily estimate how well a reconstructed phylogeny represents cladistic relationships that actually exist in nature. The authors have therefore attempted to quantify how well bootstrap percentages, posterior probabilities, and aLRT measures reflect the probability that a deduced phylogenetic clade is present in a known phylogeny. The authors simulated the evolution of bacterial genes of varying lengths under biologically realistic conditions, and reconstructed those known phylogenies using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. Then, they measured how frequently clades in the reconstructed trees exhibiting particular bootstrap percentages, aLRT values, or posterior probabilities were found in the true trees. The authors have observed that none of these values correlate with the probability that a given clade is present in the known phylogeny. The major conclusion is that none of the measures provide any information about the likelihood that an individual clade actually exists. It is also found that the mean of all clade support values on a tree closely reflects the average proportion of all clades that have been assigned correctly, and is thus a good representation of the overall accuracy of a phylogenetic tree.     

A Bayesian perspective on a non-parsimonious parsimony model

Several stochastic models of character change, when implemented in a maximum likelihood framework, are known to give a correspondence between the maximum parsimony method and the method of maximum likelihood. One such model has an independently estimated branch-length parameter for each site and each branch of the phylogenetic tree. This model--the no-common-mechanism model--has many parameters, and, in fact, the number of parameters increases as fast as the alignment is extended. We take a Bayesian approach to the no-common-mechanism model and place independent gamma prior probability distributions on the branch-length parameters. We are able to analytically integrate over the branch lengths, and this allowed us to implement an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo method for exploring the space of phylogenetic trees. We were able to reliably estimate the posterior probabilities of clades for phylogenetic trees of up to 500 sequences. However, the Bayesian approach to the problem, at least as implemented here with an independent prior on the length of each branch, does not tame the behavior of the branch-length parameters. The integrated likelihood appears to be a simple rescaling of the parsimony score for a tree, and the marginal posterior probability distribution of the length of a branch is dependent upon how the maximum parsimony method reconstructs the characters at the interior nodes of the tree. The method we describe, however, is of potential importance in the analysis of morphological character data and also for improving the behavior of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods implemented for models in which sites share a common branch-length parameter.     

Long-Branch Attraction Bias and Inconsistency in Bayesian Phylogenetics

Bayesian inference (BI) of phylogenetic relationships uses the same probabilistic models of evolution as its precursor maximum likelihood (ML), so BI has generally been assumed to share ML''s desirable statistical properties, such as largely unbiased inference of topology given an accurate model and increasingly reliable inferences as the amount of data increases. Here we show that BI, unlike ML, is biased in favor of topologies that group long branches together, even when the true model and prior distributions of evolutionary parameters over a group of phylogenies are known. Using experimental simulation studies and numerical and mathematical analyses, we show that this bias becomes more severe as more data are analyzed, causing BI to infer an incorrect tree as the maximum a posteriori phylogeny with asymptotically high support as sequence length approaches infinity. BI''s long branch attraction bias is relatively weak when the true model is simple but becomes pronounced when sequence sites evolve heterogeneously, even when this complexity is incorporated in the model. This bias—which is apparent under both controlled simulation conditions and in analyses of empirical sequence data—also makes BI less efficient and less robust to the use of an incorrect evolutionary model than ML. Surprisingly, BI''s bias is caused by one of the method''s stated advantages—that it incorporates uncertainty about branch lengths by integrating over a distribution of possible values instead of estimating them from the data, as ML does. Our findings suggest that trees inferred using BI should be interpreted with caution and that ML may be a more reliable framework for modern phylogenetic analysis.     

Fundamental differences between the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability in phylogenetics

Using a four-taxon example under a simple model of evolution, we show that the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability (which is a Bayesian method of inference) may not arrive at the same optimal tree topology. Some patterns that are separately uninformative under the maximum likelihood method are separately informative under the Bayesian method. We also show that this difference has impact on the bootstrap frequencies and the posterior probabilities of topologies, which therefore are not necessarily approximately equal. Efron et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:13429-13434, 1996) stated that bootstrap frequencies can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as posterior probabilities. This is true only if one includes a non-informative prior distribution of the possible data patterns, and most often the prior distributions are instead specified in terms of topology and branch lengths. [Bayesian inference; maximum likelihood method; Phylogeny; support.].     

分子系统进化关系分析的一种新方法--贝叶斯法在硬蜱属中的应用

距离矩阵邻接法、最大简约法和最大似然法是重建生物系统关系的3种主要方法。普遍认为最大似然法在原理上优于前二种方法，但其计算复杂费时。由于现行计算机的能力尚达不到其要求而实用性差，特别是在处理大数据集样本(即大于25个分类单元)时，用此方法几乎不可能。新近提出的贝叶斯法(Bayesianmethod)既保留了最大似然法的基本原理，又引进了马尔科夫链的蒙特卡洛方法，并使计算时间大大缩短。本文用贝叶斯法对硬蜱属(Ixodes)19个种的线粒体16S rDNA片段进行了系统进化分析。从总体上看，分析结果与现有的基于形态学的分类体系基本吻合。但与现存的假说相反，莱姆病的主要宿主蓖籽硬蜱复合种组并非单系。通过比较贝叶斯法与其它三种方法的结果，我们认为贝叶斯法是一种系统进化分析的好方法，它既能根据分子进化的现有理论和各种模型用概率重建系统进化关系，又克服了最大似然法计算速度慢、不适用于大数据集样本的缺陷。贝叶斯法根据后验概率直观地表示系统进化关系的分析结果，不需要用自引导法进行检验。可以预料，贝叶斯法将会被广泛地应用到系统进化分析上[动物学报49(3)：380—388，2003]。     

Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability

Owing to the exponential growth of genome databases, phylogenetic trees are now widely used to test a variety of evolutionary hypotheses. Nevertheless, computation time burden limits the application of methods such as maximum likelihood nonparametric bootstrap to assess reliability of evolutionary trees. As an alternative, the much faster Bayesian inference of phylogeny, which expresses branch support as posterior probabilities, has been introduced. However, marked discrepancies exist between nonparametric bootstrap proportions and Bayesian posterior probabilities, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of sometimes strongly conflicting results. As an attempt to reconcile these two indices of node reliability, we apply the nonparametric bootstrap resampling procedure to the Bayesian approach. The correlation between posterior probabilities, bootstrap maximum likelihood percentages, and bootstrapped posterior probabilities was studied for eight highly diverse empirical data sets and were also investigated using experimental simulation. Our results show that the relation between posterior probabilities and bootstrapped maximum likelihood percentages is highly variable but that very strong correlations always exist when Bayesian node support is estimated on bootstrapped character matrices. Moreover, simulations corroborate empirical observations in suggesting that, being more conservative, the bootstrap approach might be less prone to strongly supporting a false phylogenetic hypothesis. Thus, apparent conflicts in topology recovered by the Bayesian approach were reduced after bootstrapping. Both posterior probabilities and bootstrap supports are of great interest to phylogeny as potential upper and lower bounds of node reliability, but they are surely not interchangeable and cannot be directly compared.     

Implications of uniformly distributed,empirically informed priors for phylogeographical model selection: A reply to Hickerson et al.

Establishing that a set of population‐splitting events occurred at the same time can be a potentially persuasive argument that a common process affected the populations. Recently, Oaks et al. ( 2013 ) assessed the ability of an approximate‐Bayesian model‐choice method (msBayes ) to estimate such a pattern of simultaneous divergence across taxa, to which Hickerson et al. ( 2014 ) responded. Both papers agree that the primary inference enabled by the method is very sensitive to prior assumptions and often erroneously supports shared divergences across taxa when prior uncertainty about divergence times is represented by a uniform distribution. However, the papers differ about the best explanation and solution for this problem. Oaks et al. ( 2013 ) suggested the method's behavior was caused by the strong weight of uniformly distributed priors on divergence times leading to smaller marginal likelihoods (and thus smaller posterior probabilities) of models with more divergence‐time parameters (Hypothesis 1); they proposed alternative prior probability distributions to avoid such strongly weighted posteriors. Hickerson et al. ( 2014 ) suggested numerical‐approximation error causes msBayes analyses to be biased toward models of clustered divergences because the method's rejection algorithm is unable to adequately sample the parameter space of richer models within reasonable computational limits when using broad uniform priors on divergence times (Hypothesis 2). As a potential solution, they proposed a model‐averaging approach that uses narrow, empirically informed uniform priors. Here, we use analyses of simulated and empirical data to demonstrate that the approach of Hickerson et al. ( 2014 ) does not mitigate the method's tendency to erroneously support models of highly clustered divergences, and is dangerous in the sense that the empirically derived uniform priors often exclude from consideration the true values of the divergence‐time parameters. Our results also show that the tendency of msBayes analyses to support models of shared divergences is primarily due to Hypothesis 1, whereas Hypothesis 2 is an untenable explanation for the bias. Overall, this series of papers demonstrates that if our prior assumptions place too much weight in unlikely regions of parameter space such that the exact posterior supports the wrong model of evolutionary history, no amount of computation can rescue our inference. Fortunately, as predicted by fundamental principles of Bayesian model choice, more flexible distributions that accommodate prior uncertainty about parameters without placing excessive weight in vast regions of parameter space with low likelihood increase the method's robustness and power to detect temporal variation in divergences.     

Testing a molecular clock without an outgroup: derivations of induced priors on branch-length restrictions in a Bayesian framework

We propose a Bayesian method for testing molecular clock hypotheses for use with aligned sequence data from multiple taxa. Our method utilizes a nonreversible nucleotide substitution model to avoid the necessity of specifying either a known tree relating the taxa or an outgroup for rooting the tree. We employ reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo to sample from the posterior distribution of the phylogenetic model parameters and conduct hypothesis testing using Bayes factors, the ratio of the posterior to prior odds of competing models. Here, the Bayes factors reflect the relative support of the sequence data for equal rates of evolutionary change between taxa versus unequal rates, averaged over all possible phylogenetic parameters, including the tree and root position. As the molecular clock model is a restriction of the more general unequal rates model, we use the Savage-Dickey ratio to estimate the Bayes factors. The Savage-Dickey ratio provides a convenient approach to calculating Bayes factors in favor of sharp hypotheses. Critical to calculating the Savage-Dickey ratio is a determination of the prior induced on the modeling restrictions. We demonstrate our method on a well-studied mtDNA sequence data set consisting of nine primates. We find strong support against a global molecular clock, but do find support for a local clock among the anthropoids. We provide mathematical derivations of the induced priors on branch length restrictions assuming equally likely trees. These derivations also have more general applicability to the examination of prior assumptions in Bayesian phylogenetics.     

Molecular dating for phylogenies containing a mix of populations and species by using Bayesian and RelTime approaches

Simultaneous molecular dating of population and species divergences is essential in many biological investigations, including phylogeography, phylodynamics and species delimitation studies. In these investigations, multiple sequence alignments consist of both intra‐ and interspecies samples (mixed samples). As a result, the phylogenetic trees contain interspecies, interpopulation and within‐population divergences. Bayesian relaxed clock methods are often employed in these analyses, but they assume the same tree prior for both inter‐ and intraspecies branching processes and require specification of a clock model for branch rates (independent vs. autocorrelated rates models). We evaluated the impact of a single tree prior on Bayesian divergence time estimates by analysing computer‐simulated data sets. We also examined the effect of the assumption of independence of evolutionary rate variation among branches when the branch rates are autocorrelated. Bayesian approach with coalescent tree priors generally produced excellent molecular dates and highest posterior densities with high coverage probabilities. We also evaluated the performance of a non‐Bayesian method, RelTime, which does not require the specification of a tree prior or a clock model. RelTime's performance was similar to that of the Bayesian approach, suggesting that it is also suitable to analyse data sets containing both populations and species variation when its computational efficiency is needed.     

Identifying the rooted species tree from the distribution of unrooted gene trees under the coalescent

Gene trees are evolutionary trees representing the ancestry of genes sampled from multiple populations. Species trees represent populations of individuals—each with many genes—splitting into new populations or species. The coalescent process, which models ancestry of gene copies within populations, is often used to model the probability distribution of gene trees given a fixed species tree. This multispecies coalescent model provides a framework for phylogeneticists to infer species trees from gene trees using maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches. Because the coalescent models a branching process over time, all trees are typically assumed to be rooted in this setting. Often, however, gene trees inferred by traditional phylogenetic methods are unrooted. We investigate probabilities of unrooted gene trees under the multispecies coalescent model. We show that when there are four species with one gene sampled per species, the distribution of unrooted gene tree topologies identifies the unrooted species tree topology and some, but not all, information in the species tree edges (branch lengths). The location of the root on the species tree is not identifiable in this situation. However, for 5 or more species with one gene sampled per species, we show that the distribution of unrooted gene tree topologies identifies the rooted species tree topology and all its internal branch lengths. The length of any pendant branch leading to a leaf of the species tree is also identifiable for any species from which more than one gene is sampled.     

Detecting correlation between characters in a comparative analysis with uncertain phylogeny

Abstract.— The importance of accommodating the phylogenetic history of a group when performing a comparative analysis is now widely recognized. The typical approaches either assume the tree is known without error, or they base inferences on a collection of well-supported trees or on a collection of trees generated under a stochastic model of cladogenesis. However, these approaches do not adequately account for the uncertainty of phylogenetic trees in a comparative analysis, especially when data relevant to the phylogeny of a group are available. Here, we develop a method for performing comparative analyses that is based on an extension of Felsenstein's independent contrasts method. Uncertainties in the phylogeny, branch lengths, and other parameters are accommodated by averaging over all possible trees, weighting each by the probability that the tree is correct. We do this in a Bayesian framework and use Markov chain Monte Carlo to perform the high-dimensional summations and integrations required by the analysis. We illustrate the method using comparative characters sampled from Anolis lizards.