Skip Navigation

Systematic Biology 2004 53(2):327-332; doi:10.1080/10635150490423809
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huson, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Steel, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Huson, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Steel, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Society of Systematic Biologists

Distances that Perfectly Mislead

Daniel H. Huson1 and Mike Steel2

1 Center for Bioinformatics, Tübingen University Tübingen Germany; E-mail: huson{at}informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
2 Biomathematics Research Centre, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand; E-mail: m.steel{at}math.canterbury.ac.nz

Edited by Junhyong Kim: Associate Editor


   Abstract

Given a collection of discrete characters (e.g., aligned DNA sites, gene adjacencies), a common measure of distance between taxa is the proportion of characters for which taxa have different character states. Tree reconstruction based on these (uncorrected) distances can be statistically inconsistent and can lead to trees different from those obtained using character-based methods such as maximum likelihood or maximum parsimony. However, in these cases the distance data often reveal their unreliability by some deviation from additivity, as indicated by conflicting support for more than one tree. We describe two results that show how uncorrected (and miscorrected) distance data can be simultaneously perfectly additive and misleading. First, multistate character data can be perfectly compatible and define one tree, and yet the uncorrected distances derived from these characters are perfectly treelike (and obey a molecular clock), only for a completely different tree. Second, under a Markov model of character evolution a similar phenomenon can occur; not only is there statistical inconsistency using uncorrected distances, but there is no evidence of this inconsistency because the distances look perfectly treelike (this does not occur in the classic two-parameter Felsenstein zone). We characterize precisely when uncorrected distances are additive on the true (and on a false) tree for four taxa. We also extend this result to a more general setting that applies to distances corrected according to an incorrect model.

Keywords: Additive metric; distance-based phylogeny reconstruction; inconsistency

Received August 27, 2003; Revised November 17, 2003; Accepted November 28, 2003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
H.-J. Bandelt and M. Fischer
Perfectly Misleading Distances from Ternary Characters
Syst Biol, August 1, 2008; 57(4): 540 - 543.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
W. White, S. Hills, R Gaddam, B. Holland, and D. Penny
Treeness Triangles: Visualizing the Loss of Phylogenetic Signal
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2007; 24(9): 2029 - 2039.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.