8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence.

      Systematic Biology

      Research Design, Phylogeny, Models, Genetic, Likelihood Functions, genetics, Genes, Computer Simulation, methods, Classification

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although multiple gene sequences are becoming increasingly available for molecular phylogenetic inference, the analysis of such data has largely relied on inference methods designed for single genes. One of the common approaches to analyzing data from multiple genes is concatenation of the individual gene data to form a single supergene to which traditional phylogenetic inference procedures - e.g., maximum parsimony (MP) or maximum likelihood (ML) - are applied. Recent empirical studies have demonstrated that concatenation of sequences from multiple genes prior to phylogenetic analysis often results in inference of a single, well-supported phylogeny. Theoretical work, however, has shown that the coalescent can produce substantial variation in single-gene histories. Using simulation, we combine these ideas to examine the performance of the concatenation approach under conditions in which the coalescent produces a high level of discord among individual gene trees and show that it leads to statistically inconsistent estimation in this setting. Furthermore, use of the bootstrap to measure support for the inferred phylogeny can result in moderate to strong support for an incorrect tree under these conditions. These results highlight the importance of incorporating variation in gene histories into multilocus phylogenetics.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10.1080/10635150601146041
          17366134

          Comments

          Comment on this article