Skip Navigation

Systematic Biology 2008 57(1):86-103; doi:10.1080/10635150801886156
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lakner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Ronquist, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lakner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Ronquist, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2008 Society of Systematic Biologists

Efficiency of Markov Chain Monte Carlo Tree Proposals in Bayesian Phylogenetics

Clemens Lakner1,2, Paul van der Mark2, John P. Huelsenbeck3, Bret Larget4 and Fredrik Ronquist1,2

1 Department of Biological Science, Section Ecology and Evolution, Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4120, USA; E-mail: lakner{at}scs.fsu.edu (C.L.)
2 School of Computational Science, Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4120, USA
3 Department of Integrative Biology, 3060 VLSB 3140, University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA
4 Departments of Botany and of Statistics, University of Wisconsin at Madison Wisconsin 53706, USA


   Abstract

The main limiting factor in Bayesian MCMC analysis of phylogeny is typically the efficiency with which topology proposals sample tree space. Here we evaluate the performance of seven different proposal mechanisms, including most of those used in current Bayesian phylogenetics software. We sampled 12 empirical nucleotide data sets—ranging in size from 27 to 71 taxa and from 378 to 2,520 sites—under difficult conditions: short runs, no Metropolis-coupling, and an oversimplified substitution model producing difficult tree spaces (Jukes Cantor with equal site rates). Convergence was assessed by comparison to reference samples obtained from multiple Metropolis-coupled runs. We find that proposals producing topology changes as a side effect of branch length changes (LOCAL and Continuous Change) consistently perform worse than those involving stochastic branch rearrangements (nearest neighbor interchange, subtree pruning and regrafting, tree bisection and reconnection, or subtree swapping). Among the latter, moves that use an extension mechanism to mix local with more distant rearrangements show better overall performance than those involving only local or only random rearrangements. Moves with only local rearrangements tend to mix well but have long burn-in periods, whereas moves with random rearrangements often show the reverse pattern. Combinations of moves tend to perform better than single moves. The time to convergence can be shortened considerably by starting with a good tree, but this comes at the cost of compromising convergence diagnostics based on overdispersed starting points. Our results have important implications for developers of Bayesian MCMC implementations and for the large group of users of Bayesian phylogenetics software.

Keywords: Bayesian inference; Hastings ratio; Markov chain Monte Carlo; topology proposals

Received February 28, 2007; Revised June 25, 2007; Accepted September 27, 2007
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
E. W. Bloomquist and M. A. Suchard
Unifying Vertical and Nonvertical Evolution: A Stochastic ARG-based Framework
Syst Biol, November 9, 2009; (2009) syp076v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
K. A. Cranston, B. Hurwitz, D. Ware, L. Stein, and R. A. Wing
Species Trees from Highly Incongruent Gene Trees in Rice
Syst Biol, October 1, 2009; 58(5): 489 - 500.
[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.