A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.

We present a series of simulation studies that explore the relative performance of several phylogenetic network approaches (statistical parsimony, split decomposition, union of maximum parsimony trees, neighbor-net, simulated history recombination upper bound, median-joining, reduced median joining...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Steven M Woolley, David Posada, Keith A Crandall
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2008-04-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2275308?pdf=render
id doaj-2b705ddc6d8546278b2902d711744c8d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2b705ddc6d8546278b2902d711744c8d2020-11-24T21:50:02ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032008-04-0134e191310.1371/journal.pone.0001913A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.Steven M WoolleyDavid PosadaKeith A CrandallWe present a series of simulation studies that explore the relative performance of several phylogenetic network approaches (statistical parsimony, split decomposition, union of maximum parsimony trees, neighbor-net, simulated history recombination upper bound, median-joining, reduced median joining and minimum spanning network) compared to standard tree approaches, (neighbor-joining and maximum parsimony) in the presence and absence of recombination.In the absence of recombination, all methods recovered the correct topology and branch lengths nearly all of the time when the substitution rate was low, except for minimum spanning networks, which did considerably worse. At a higher substitution rate, maximum parsimony and union of maximum parsimony trees were the most accurate. With recombination, the ability to infer the correct topology was halved for all methods and no method could accurately estimate branch lengths.Our results highlight the need for more accurate phylogenetic network methods and the importance of detecting and accounting for recombination in phylogenetic studies. Furthermore, we provide useful information for choosing a network algorithm and a framework in which to evaluate improvements to existing methods and novel algorithms developed in the future.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2275308?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Steven M Woolley
David Posada
Keith A Crandall
spellingShingle Steven M Woolley
David Posada
Keith A Crandall
A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Steven M Woolley
David Posada
Keith A Crandall
author_sort Steven M Woolley
title A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
title_short A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
title_full A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
title_fullStr A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
title_sort comparison of phylogenetic network methods using computer simulation.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2008-04-01
description We present a series of simulation studies that explore the relative performance of several phylogenetic network approaches (statistical parsimony, split decomposition, union of maximum parsimony trees, neighbor-net, simulated history recombination upper bound, median-joining, reduced median joining and minimum spanning network) compared to standard tree approaches, (neighbor-joining and maximum parsimony) in the presence and absence of recombination.In the absence of recombination, all methods recovered the correct topology and branch lengths nearly all of the time when the substitution rate was low, except for minimum spanning networks, which did considerably worse. At a higher substitution rate, maximum parsimony and union of maximum parsimony trees were the most accurate. With recombination, the ability to infer the correct topology was halved for all methods and no method could accurately estimate branch lengths.Our results highlight the need for more accurate phylogenetic network methods and the importance of detecting and accounting for recombination in phylogenetic studies. Furthermore, we provide useful information for choosing a network algorithm and a framework in which to evaluate improvements to existing methods and novel algorithms developed in the future.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2275308?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT stevenmwoolley acomparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
AT davidposada acomparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
AT keithacrandall acomparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
AT stevenmwoolley comparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
AT davidposada comparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
AT keithacrandall comparisonofphylogeneticnetworkmethodsusingcomputersimulation
_version_ 1725885711309078528