Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2000 Jan 22;267(1439):109–116. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.0974

Complexity of the simplest phylogenetic estimation problem.

Z Yang 1
PMCID: PMC1690513  PMID: 10687814

Abstract

The maximum-likelihood (ML) solution to a simple phylogenetic estimation problem is obtained analytically The problem is estimation of the rooted tree for three species using binary characters with a symmetrical rate of substitution under the molecular clock. ML estimates of branch lengths and log-likelihood scores are obtained analytically for each of the three rooted binary trees. Estimation of the tree topology is equivalent to partitioning the sample space (space of possible data outcomes) into subspaces, within each of which one of the three binary trees is the ML tree. Distance-based least squares and parsimony-like methods produce essentially the same estimate of the tree topology, although differences exist among methods even under this simple model. This seems to be the simplest case, but has many of the conceptual and statistical complexities involved in phylogeny estimation. The solution to this real phylogeny estimation problem will be useful for studying the problem of significance evaluation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (318.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown W. M., Prager E. M., Wang A., Wilson A. C. Mitochondrial DNA sequences of primates: tempo and mode of evolution. J Mol Evol. 1982;18(4):225–239. doi: 10.1007/BF01734101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bruno W. J., Halpern A. L. Topological bias and inconsistency of maximum likelihood using wrong models. Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Apr;16(4):564–566. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chang J. T. Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math Biosci. 1996 Jun;134(2):189–215. doi: 10.1016/0025-5564(95)00172-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Edwards A. W. Assessing molecular phylogenies. Science. 1995 Jan 13;267(5195):253–256. doi: 10.1126/science.7809632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 1981;17(6):368–376. doi: 10.1007/BF01734359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rannala B., Yang Z. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J Mol Evol. 1996 Sep;43(3):304–311. doi: 10.1007/BF02338839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rogers J. S. On the consistency of maximum likelihood estimation of phylogenetic trees from nucleotide sequences. Syst Biol. 1997 Jun;46(2):354–357. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/46.2.354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Saitou N. Property and efficiency of the maximum likelihood method for molecular phylogeny. J Mol Evol. 1988;27(3):261–273. doi: 10.1007/BF02100082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Yang Z. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? Mol Biol Evol. 1997 Jan;14(1):105–108. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Yang Z. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. J Mol Evol. 1996 Feb;42(2):294–307. doi: 10.1007/BF02198856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Zharkikh A., Li W. H. Statistical properties of bootstrap estimation of phylogenetic variability from nucleotide sequences. I. Four taxa with a molecular clock. Mol Biol Evol. 1992 Nov;9(6):1119–1147. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES