Table 2.
Comparison of alternative tree topologies by exhaustive maximum likelihood (ML) analysis
| Treea | Topologyb | ΔlnLc | S.E. | pAUd | pKHd | RELLe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Out, (Red, Htrl), (EuSt, (Glauco, Green))); | <-27143.41> | - | 0.867 | 0.758 | 0.283 |
| 36 | (Out, Red, ((Htrl, Green), (EuSt, Glauco))); | 30.2 | 14.4 | 0.038 | 0.020 | 5.00E-06 |
| 49 | (Out, ((Red, (Htrl, Green)), EuSt), Glauco); | 54.7 | 17.8 | 0.013 | 0.003 | 2.00E-04 |
| 54 | (Out, ((Red, (Htrl, Green)), Glauco), EuSt); | 40.1 | 19.3 | 0.011 | 0.024 | 3.00E-04 |
| 56 | (Out, Red, (((Htrl, Green), Glauco), EuSt)); | 27.8 | 15.8 | 0.009 | 0.038 | 4.00E-04 |
| 58 | (Out, ((Red, Glauco), (Htrl, Green)), EuSt); | 41.6 | 19.4 | 0.009 | 0.021 | 3.00E-06 |
| 70 | (Out, ((Red, EuSt), (Htrl, Green)), Glauco); | 52.8 | 18.2 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 3.00E-07 |
| 71 | * (Out, (Red, (Htrl, (EuSt, Green))), Glauco); | 48.9 | 15.5 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 1.00E-05 |
| 82 | * (Out, (Red, ((Htrl, Green), EuSt)), Glauco); | 57.1 | 17.8 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 3.00E-06 |
| 85 | (Out, (Red, (EuSt, Glauco)), (Htrl, Green)); | 44.1 | 15.0 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 2.00E-05 |
| 86 | (Out, (Red, ((Htrl, Green), Glauco)), EuSt); | 39.2 | 19.1 | 5.00E-04 | 0.025 | 6.00E-06 |
| 87 | * (Out, Red, (((Htrl, EuSt), Green), Glauco)); | 29.5 | 14.8 | 4.00E-04 | 0.025 | 1.00E-06 |
| 89 | (Out, ((Red, EuSt), Glauco), (Htrl, Green)); | 51.3 | 18.0 | 2.00E-04 | 0.005 | 3.00E-06 |
| 91 | * (Out, Red, ((Htrl, (EuSt, Green)), Glauco)); | 27.9 | 14.5 | 1.00E-04 | 0.028 | 1.00E-05 |
| 93 | * (Out, (Red, Glauco), (Htrl, (EuSt, Green))); | 50.0 | 16.3 | 1.00E-04 | 0.003 | 3.00E-06 |
| 94 | * (Out, (Red, ((Htrl, EuSt), Green)), Glauco); | 54.0 | 18.5 | 1.00E-04 | 0.004 | 1.00E-06 |
| 95 | (Out, (Red, EuSt), ((Htrl, Green), Glauco)); | 44.8 | 18.5 | 6.00E-05 | 0.012 | 2.00E-06 |
| 96 | (Out, (Red, (Htrl, Green)), (EuSt, Glauco)); | 41.4 | 15.0 | 3.00E-05 | 0.005 | 5.00E-07 |
| 98 | * (Out, (Red, Glauco), ((Htrl, EuSt), Green)); | 52.5 | 18.7 | 2.00E-06 | 0.006 | 7.00E-07 |
| 101 | (Out, ((Red, Glauco), EuSt), (Htrl, Green)); | 55.7 | 18.0 | 2.00E-40 | 0.003 | 2.00E-15 |
| 103 | * (Out, (Red, Glauco), ((Htrl, Green), EuSt)); | 57.0 | 18.2 | 2.00E-53 | 0.003 | 1.00E-17 |
| 104 | * (Out, Red, (((Htrl, Green), EuSt), Glauco)); | 32.8 | 15.0 | 3.00E-56 | 0.016 | 8.00E-19 |
aBest tree (tree 1) and trees supporting the monophyly of green plants + Heterolobosea among all the possible 105 trees retaining six monophyletic groups in Fig. 1.
bGreen, green plants; Htrl, Heterolobosea; Glauco, Glaucophyta; EuSt, Euglenida and Stramenopiles; Red, red algae; Out, eukaryotic ancestral clade and cyanobacteria. Intra-group topologies of six groups are fixed as shown in Fig. 1.
cDifference in the log-likelihood value of alternative tree versus the 'best' tree.
dProbability values of the approximately unbiased (AU) and Kishino-Hasegawa (KH) tests.
eBootstrap support value of resampling estimated log-likelihood with 10,000 replicates.
Asterisks indicate the topologies supporting the monophyly of Green + Htrl + EuSt.