Survey of branch support methods demonstrates accuracy, power, and robustness of fast likelihood-based approximation schemes

Phylogenetic inference and evaluating support for inferred relationships is at the core of many studies testing evolutionary hypotheses. Despite the popularity of nonparametric bootstrap frequencies and Bayesian posterior probabilities, the interpretation of these measures of tree branch support remains a source of discussion. Furthermore, both methods are computationally expensive and become prohibitive for large data sets. Recent fast approximate likelihood-based measures of branch supports (approximate likelihood ratio test [aLRT] and Shimodaira-Hasegawa [SH]-aLRT) provide a compelling alternative to these slower conventional methods, offering not only speed advantages but also excellent levels of accuracy and power. Here we propose an additional method: a Bayesian-like transformation of aLRT (aBayes). Considering both probabilistic and frequentist frameworks, we compare the performance of the three fast likelihood-based methods with the standard bootstrap (SBS), the Bayesian approach, and the recently introduced rapid bootstrap. Our simulations and real data analyses show that with moderate model violations, all tests are sufficiently accurate, but aLRT and aBayes offer the highest statistical power and are very fast. With severe model violations aLRT, aBayes and Bayesian posteriors can produce elevated false-positive rates. With data sets for which such violation can be detected, we recommend using SH-aLRT, the nonparametric version of aLRT based on a procedure similar to the Shimodaira-Hasegawa tree selection. In general, the SBS seems to be excessively conservative and is much slower than our approximate likelihood-based methods.     

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.].     

Bootstrap method of interior-branch test for phylogenetic trees

Statistical properties of the bootstrap test of interior branch lengths of phylogenetic trees have been studied and compared with those of the standard interior-branch test in computer simulations. Examination of the properties of the tests under the null hypothesis showed that both tests for an interior branch of a predetermined topology are quite reliable when the distribution of the branch length estimate approaches a normal distribution. Unlike the standard interior-branch test, the bootstrap test appears to retain this property even when the substitution rate varies among sites. In this case, the distribution of the branch length estimate deviates from a normal distribution, and the standard interior-branch test gives conservative confidence probability values. A simple correction method was developed for both interior- branch tests to be applied for testing the reliability of tree topologies estimated from sequence data. This correction for the standard interior-branch test appears to be as effective as that obtained in our previous study, though it is much simpler. The bootstrap and standard interior-branch tests for estimated topologies become conservative as the number of sequence groups in a star-like tree increases.      

Interior-branch and bootstrap tests of phylogenetic trees

We have compared statistical properties of the interior-branch and bootstrap tests of phylogenetic trees when the neighbor-joining tree- building method is used. For each interior branch of a predetermined topology, the interior-branch and bootstrap tests provide the confidence values, PC and PB, respectively, that indicate the extent of statistical support of the sequence cluster generated by the branch. In phylogenetic analysis these two values are often interpreted in the same way, and if PC and PB are high (say, > or = 0.95), the sequence cluster is regarded as reliable. We have shown that PC is in fact the complement of the P-value used in the standard statistical test, but PB is not. Actually, the bootstrap test usually underestimates the extent of statistical support of species clusters. The relationship between the confidence values obtained by the two tests varies with both the topology and expected branch lengths of the true (model) tree. The most conspicuous difference between PC and PB is observed when the true tree is starlike, and there is a tendency for the difference to increase as the number of sequences in the tree increases. The reason for this is that the bootstrap test tends to become progressively more conservative as the number of sequences in the tree increases. Unlike the bootstrap, the interior-branch test has the same statistical properties irrespective of the number of sequences used when a predetermined tree is considered. Therefore, the interior-branch test appears to be preferable to the bootstrap test as long as unbiased estimators of evolutionary distances are used. However, when the interior-branch is applied to a tree estimated from a given data set, PC may give an overestimate of statistical confidence. For this case, we developed a method for computing a modified version (P'C) of the PC value and showed that this P'C tends to give a conservative estimate of statistical confidence, though it is not as conservative as PB. In this paper we have introduced a model in which evolutionary distances between sequences follow a multivariate normal distribution. This model allowed us to study the relationships between the two tests analytically.      

Effects of branch length uncertainty on Bayesian posterior probabilities for phylogenetic hypotheses

In Bayesian phylogenetics, confidence in evolutionary relationships is expressed as posterior probability--the probability that a tree or clade is true given the data, evolutionary model, and prior assumptions about model parameters. Model parameters, such as branch lengths, are never known in advance; Bayesian methods incorporate this uncertainty by integrating over a range of plausible values given an assumed prior probability distribution for each parameter. Little is known about the effects of integrating over branch length uncertainty on posterior probabilities when different priors are assumed. Here, we show that integrating over uncertainty using a wide range of typical prior assumptions strongly affects posterior probabilities, causing them to deviate from those that would be inferred if branch lengths were known in advance; only when there is no uncertainty to integrate over does the average posterior probability of a group of trees accurately predict the proportion of correct trees in the group. The pattern of branch lengths on the true tree determines whether integrating over uncertainty pushes posterior probabilities upward or downward. The magnitude of the effect depends on the specific prior distributions used and the length of the sequences analyzed. Under realistic conditions, however, even extraordinarily long sequences are not enough to prevent frequent inference of incorrect clades with strong support. We found that across a range of conditions, diffuse priors--either flat or exponential distributions with moderate to large means--provide more reliable inferences than small-mean exponential priors. An empirical Bayes approach that fixes branch lengths at their maximum likelihood estimates yields posterior probabilities that more closely match those that would be inferred if the true branch lengths were known in advance and reduces the rate of strongly supported false inferences compared with fully Bayesian integration.     

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.     

BRANCH SUPPORT AND TREE STABILITY

Abstract— Branch support is quantified as the extra length needed to lose a branch in the consensus of near-most-parsimonious trees. This approach is based solely on the original data, as opposed to the data perturbation used in the bootstrap procedure. If trees have been generated by Farris's successive approximations approach to character weighting, branch support should be examined in terms of weighted extra length needed to lose a branch. The sum of all branch support values over the tree divided by the length of the most parsimonious tree[s] provides a new index, the total support index. This index is a measure of tree stability in terms of supported resolutions, which is of prime importance in cladistic analysis.     

Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative

We revisit statistical tests for branches of evolutionary trees reconstructed upon molecular data. A new, fast, approximate likelihood-ratio test (aLRT) for branches is presented here as a competitive alternative to nonparametric bootstrap and Bayesian estimation of branch support. The aLRT is based on the idea of the conventional LRT, with the null hypothesis corresponding to the assumption that the inferred branch has length 0. We show that the LRT statistic is asymptotically distributed as a maximum of three random variables drawn from the chi(0)2 + chi(1)2 distribution. The new aLRT of interior branch uses this distribution for significance testing, but the test statistic is approximated in a slightly conservative but practical way as 2(l1- l2), i.e., double the difference between the maximum log-likelihood values corresponding to the best tree and the second best topological arrangement around the branch of interest. Such a test is fast because the log-likelihood value l2 is computed by optimizing only over the branch of interest and the four adjacent branches, whereas other parameters are fixed at their optimal values corresponding to the best ML tree. The performance of the new test was studied on simulated 4-, 12-, and 100-taxon data sets with sequences of different lengths. The aLRT is shown to be accurate, powerful, and robust to certain violations of model assumptions. The aLRT is implemented within the algorithm used by the recent fast maximum likelihood tree estimation program PHYML (Guindon and Gascuel, 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.     

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.     

Supertree bootstrapping methods for assessing phylogenetic variation among genes in genome-scale data sets

Nonparamtric bootstrapping methods may be useful for assessing confidence in a supertree inference. We examined the performance of two supertree bootstrapping methods on four published data sets that each include sequence data from more than 100 genes. In "input tree bootstrapping," input gene trees are sampled with replacement and then combined in replicate supertree analyses; in "stratified bootstrapping," trees from each gene's separate (conventional) bootstrap tree set are sampled randomly with replacement and then combined. Generally, support values from both supertree bootstrap methods were similar or slightly lower than corresponding bootstrap values from a total evidence, or supermatrix, analysis. Yet, supertree bootstrap support also exceeded supermatrix bootstrap support for a number of clades. There was little overall difference in support scores between the input tree and stratified bootstrapping methods. Results from supertree bootstrapping methods, when compared to results from corresponding supermatrix bootstrapping, may provide insights into patterns of variation among genes in genome-scale data sets.     

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.     

Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. I. Four taxa with a molecular clock.

The statistical properties of sample estimation and bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from a sample of nucleotide sequences are studied by using model trees of three taxa with an outgroup and by assuming a constant rate of nucleotide substitution. The maximum-parsimony method of tree reconstruction is used. An analytic formula is derived for estimating the sequence length that is required if P, the probability of obtaining the true tree from the sampled sequences, is to be equal to or higher than a given value. Bootstrap estimation is formulated as a two-step sampling procedure: (1) sampling of sequences from the evolutionary process and (2) resampling of the original sequence sample. The probability that a bootstrap resampling of an original sequence sample will support the true tree is found to depend on the model tree, the sequence length, and the probability that a randomly chosen nucleotide site is an informative site. When a trifurcating tree is used as the model tree, the probability that one of the three bifurcating trees will appear in > or = 95% of the bootstrap replicates is < 5%, even if the number of bootstrap replicates is only 50; therefore, the probability of accepting an erroneous tree as the true tree is < 5% if that tree appears in > or = 95% of the bootstrap replicates and if more than 50 bootstrap replications are conducted. However, if a particular bifurcating tree is observed in, say, < 75% of the bootstrap replicates, then it cannot be claimed to be better than the trifurcating tree even if > or = 1,000 bootstrap replications are conducted. When a bifurcating tree is used as the model tree, the bootstrap approach tends to overestimate P when the sequences are very short, but it tends to underestimate that probability when the sequences are long. Moreover, simulation results show that, if a tree is accepted as the true tree only if it has appeared in > or = 95% of the bootstrap replicates, then the probability of failing to accept any bifurcating tree can be as large as 58% even when P = 95%, i.e., even when 95% of the samples from the evolutionary process will support the true tree. Thus, if the rate-constancy assumption holds, bootstrapping is a conservative approach for estimating the reliability of an inferred phylogeny for four taxa.     

Multiple sequence alignment accuracy and phylogenetic inference

Phylogenies are often thought to be more dependent upon the specifics of the sequence alignment rather than on the method of reconstruction. Simulation of sequences containing insertion and deletion events was performed in order to determine the role that alignment accuracy plays during phylogenetic inference. Data sets were simulated for pectinate, balanced, and random tree shapes under different conditions (ultrametric equal branch length, ultrametric random branch length, nonultrametric random branch length). Comparisons between hypothesized alignments and true alignments enabled determination of two measures of alignment accuracy, that of the total data set and that of individual branches. In general, our results indicate that as alignment error increases, topological accuracy decreases. This trend was much more pronounced for data sets derived from more pectinate topologies. In contrast, for balanced, ultrametric, equal branch length tree shapes, alignment inaccuracy had little average effect on tree reconstruction. These conclusions are based on average trends of many analyses under different conditions, and any one specific analysis, independent of the alignment accuracy, may recover very accurate or inaccurate topologies. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian, in general, outperformed neighbor joining and maximum parsimony in terms of tree reconstruction accuracy. Results also indicated that as the length of the branch and of the neighboring branches increase, alignment accuracy decreases, and the length of the neighboring branches is the major factor in topological accuracy. Thus, multiple-sequence alignment can be an important factor in downstream effects on topological reconstruction.     

Accuracy of rate estimation using relaxed-clock models with a critical focus on the early metazoan radiation

In recent years, a number of phylogenetic methods have been developed for estimating molecular rates and divergence dates under models that relax the molecular clock constraint by allowing rate change throughout the tree. These methods are being used with increasing frequency, but there have been few studies into their accuracy. We tested the accuracy of several relaxed-clock methods (penalized likelihood and Bayesian inference using various models of rate change) using nucleotide sequences simulated on a nine-taxon tree. When the sequences evolved with a constant rate, the methods were able to infer rates accurately, but estimates were more precise when a molecular clock was assumed. When the sequences evolved under a model of auto-correlated rate change, rates were accurately estimated using penalized likelihood and by Bayesian inference using lognormal and exponential models of rate change, while other models did not perform as well. When the sequences evolved under a model of uncorrelated rate change, only Bayesian inference using an exponential rate model performed well. Collectively, the results provide a strong recommendation for using the exponential model of rate change if a conservative approach to divergence time estimation is required. A case study is presented in which we use a simulation-based approach to examine the hypothesis of elevated rates in the Cambrian period, and it is found that these high rate estimates might be an artifact of the rate estimation method. If this bias is present, then the ages of metazoan divergences would be systematically underestimated. The results of this study have implications for studies of molecular rates and divergence dates.     

The Applicability of Ordinary Least Squares to Consistently Short Distances between Taxa in Phylogenetic Tree Construction and the Normal Distribution Test Consequences

Short phylogenetic distances between taxa occur, for example, in studies on ribosomal RNA-genes with slow substitution rates. For consistently short distances, it is proved that in the completely singular limit of the covariance matrix ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates are minimum variance or best linear unbiased (BLU) estimates of phylogenetic tree branch lengths. Although OLS estimates are in this situation equal to generalized least squares (GLS) estimates, the GLS chi-square likelihood ratio test will be inapplicable as it is associated with zero degrees of freedom. Consequently, an OLS normal distribution test or an analogous bootstrap approach will provide optimal branch length tests of significance for consistently short phylogenetic distances. As the asymptotic covariances between branch lengths will be equal to zero, it follows that the product rule can be used in tree evaluation to calculate an approximate simultaneous confidence probability that all interior branches are positive.     

How meaningful are Bayesian support values?

In this study, we used an empirical example based on 100 mitochondrial genomes from higher teleost fishes to compare the accuracy of parsimony-based jackknife values with Bayesian support values. Phylogenetic analyses of 366 partitions, using differential taxon and character sampling from the entire data matrix of 100 taxa and 7,990 characters, were performed for both phylogenetic methods. The tree topology and branch-support values from each partition were compared with the tree inferred from all taxa and characters. Using this approach, we quantified the accuracy of the branch-support values assigned by the jackknife and Bayesian methods, with respect to each of 15 basal clades. In comparing the jackknife and Bayesian methods, we found that (1) both measures of support differ significantly from an ideal support index; (2) the jackknife underestimated support values; (3) the Bayesian method consistently overestimated support; (4) the magnitude by which Bayesian values overestimate support exceeds the magnitude by which the jackknife underestimates support; and (5) both methods performed poorly when taxon sampling was increased and character sampling was not increases. These results indicate that (1) the higher Bayesian support values are inappropriate (in magnitude), and (2) Bayesian support values should not be interpreted as probabilities that clades are correctly resolved. We advocate the continued use of the relatively conservative bootstrap and jackknife approaches to estimating branch support rather than the more extreme overestimates provided by the Markov Chain Monte Carlo-based Bayesian methods.     

Spurious 99% bootstrap and jackknife support for unsupported clades

Quantifying branch support using the bootstrap and/or jackknife is generally considered to be an essential component of rigorous parsimony and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses. Previous authors have described how application of the frequency-within-replicates approach to treating multiple equally optimal trees found in a given bootstrap pseudoreplicate can provide apparent support for otherwise unsupported clades. We demonstrate how a similar problem may occur when a non-representative subset of equally optimal trees are held per pseudoreplicate, which we term the undersampling-within-replicates artifact. We illustrate the frequency-within-replicates and undersampling-within-replicates bootstrap and jackknife artifacts using both contrived and empirical examples, demonstrate that the artifacts can occur in both parsimony and likelihood analyses, and show that the artifacts occur in outputs from multiple different phylogenetic-inference programs. Based on our results, we make the following five recommendations, which are particularly relevant to supermatrix analyses, but apply to all phylogenetic analyses. First, when two or more optimal trees are found in a given pseudoreplicate they should be summarized using the strict-consensus rather than frequency-within-replicates approach. Second jackknife resampling should be used rather than bootstrap resampling. Third, multiple tree searches while holding multiple trees per search should be conducted in each pseudoreplicate rather than conducting only a single search and holding only a single tree. Fourth, branches with a minimum possible optimized length of zero should be collapsed within each tree search rather than collapsing branches only if their maximum possible optimized length is zero. Fifth, resampling values should be mapped onto the strict consensus of all optimal trees found rather than simply presenting the ≥ 50% bootstrap or jackknife tree or mapping the resampling values onto a single optimal tree.     

Calculating the evolutionary rates of different genes: a fast, accurate estimator with applications to maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis

In phylogenetic analyses with combined multigene or multiprotein data sets, accounting for differing evolutionary dynamics at different loci is essential for accurate tree prediction. Existing maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian approaches are computationally intensive. We present an alternative approach that is orders of magnitude faster. The method, Distance Rates (DistR), estimates rates based upon distances derived from gene/protein sequence data. Simulation studies indicate that this technique is accurate compared with other methods and robust to missing sequence data. The DistR method was applied to a fungal mitochondrial data set, and the rate estimates compared well to those obtained using existing ML and Bayesian approaches. Inclusion of the protein rates estimated from the DistR method into the ML calculation of trees as a branch length multiplier resulted in a significantly improved fit as measured by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Furthermore, bootstrap support for the ML topology was significantly greater when protein rates were used, and some evident errors in the concatenated ML tree topology (i.e., without protein rates) were corrected. [Bayesian credible intervals; DistR method; multigene phylogeny; PHYML; rate heterogeneity.].