© 2006 Society of Systematic Biologists
Supertree Bootstrapping Methods for Assessing Phylogenetic Variation among Genes in Genome-Scale Data Sets
Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California Davis CA 95616 USA jgburleigh{at}ucdavis.edu (J.G.B.)
Edited by Olaf Bininda-Emonds: Associate Editor
 |
Abstract |
|---|
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.
Keywords: Nonparametric bootstrapping; phylogenetics; supermatrix; supertree; supertree bootstrapping
Received July 11, 2005; Revised August 30, 2005; Accepted November 4, 2005
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. J. Baker, V. Savolainen, C. B. Asmussen-Lange, M. W. Chase, J. Dransfield, F. Forest, M. M. Harley, N. W. Uhl, and M. Wilkinson Complete Generic-Level Phylogenetic Analyses of Palms (Arecaceae) with Comparisons of Supertree and Supermatrix Approaches Syst Biol, May 30, 2009; (2009) syp021v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Joly and A. Bruneau Measuring Branch Support in Species Trees Obtained by Gene Tree Parsimony Syst Biol, May 25, 2009; (2009) syp013v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Ruta, D. Pisani, G. T Lloyd, and M. J Benton A supertree of Temnospondyli: cladogenetic patterns in the most species-rich group of early tetrapods Proc R Soc B, December 22, 2007; 274(1629): 3087 - 3095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Gatesy, R. DeSalle, and N. Wahlberg How Many Genes Should a Systematist Sample? Conflicting Insights from a Phylogenomic Matrix Characterized by Replicated Incongruence Syst Biol, April 1, 2007; 56(2): 355 - 363. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Comas, A. Moya, and F. Gonzalez-Candelas From Phylogenetics to Phylogenomics: The Evolutionary Relationships of Insect Endosymbiotic {gamma}-Proteobacteria as a Test Case Syst Biol, February 1, 2007; 56(1): 1 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Moore, S. A. Smith, and M. J. Donoghue Increasing Data Transparency and Estimating Phylogenetic Uncertainty in Supertrees: Approaches Using Nonparametric Bootstrapping Syst Biol, August 1, 2006; 55(4): 662 - 676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|