An empirical test of the midpoint rooting method

被引:157
作者
Hess, Pablo N. [1 ]
De Moraes Russo, Claudia A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Inst Biol, Dept Genet, Lab Biodiversidade Mol,CCS, BR-21941S70 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
关键词
molecular clock; outgroup rooting; outgroups; phylogenetic trees; systematics; unrooted trees;
D O I
10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00864.x
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The outgroup method is widely used to root phylogenetic trees. An accurate root indication, however, strongly depends on the availability of a proper outgroup. An alternate rooting method is the midpoint rooting (MPR). In this case, the root is set at the midpoint between the two most divergent operational taxonomic units. Although the midpoint rooting algorithm has been extensively used, the efficiency of this method in retrieving the correct root remains untested. In the present study, we empirically tested the success rate of the MPR in obtaining the outgroup root for a given phylogenetic tree. This was carried out by eliminating outgroups in 50 selected data sets from 33 papers and rooting the trees with the midpoint method. We were thus able to compare the root position retrieved by each method. Data sets were separated into three categories with different root consistencies: data sets with a single outgroup taxon (54% success rate for MPR), data sets with multiple outgroup taxa that showed inconsistency in root position (82% success rate), and data sets with multiple outgroup taxa in which root position was consistent (94% success rate). Interestingly, the more consistent the outgroup root is, the more successful MPR appears to be. This is a strong indication that the MPR method is valuable, particularly for cases where a proper outgroup is unavailable. (c) 2007 The Linnean Society of London.
引用
收藏
页码:669 / 674
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   INTRASPECIFIC PHYLOGEOGRAPHY - THE MITOCHONDRIAL-DNA BRIDGE BETWEEN POPULATION-GENETICS AND SYSTEMATICS [J].
AVISE, JC ;
ARNOLD, J ;
BALL, RM ;
BERMINGHAM, E ;
LAMB, T ;
NEIGEL, JE ;
REEB, CA ;
SAUNDERS, NC .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS, 1987, 18 :489-522
[2]   ESTIMATING PHYLOGENETIC TREES FROM DISTANCE MATRICES [J].
FARRIS, JS .
AMERICAN NATURALIST, 1972, 106 (951) :645-&
[3]   CASES IN WHICH PARSIMONY OR COMPATIBILITY METHODS WILL BE POSITIVELY MISLEADING [J].
FELSENSTEIN, J .
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY, 1978, 27 (04) :401-410
[4]  
FELSENSTEIN J, 1985, EVOLUTION, V39, P783, DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x
[5]  
HEDGES SB, 1992, MOL BIOL EVOL, V9, P366
[6]   A FRAMEWORK FOR THE QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EVOLUTIONARY TREES [J].
HENDY, MD ;
PENNY, D .
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY, 1989, 38 (04) :297-309
[7]   AN EMPIRICAL-TEST OF BOOTSTRAPPING AS A METHOD FOR ASSESSING CONFIDENCE IN PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS [J].
HILLIS, DM ;
BULL, JJ .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 1993, 42 (02) :182-192
[8]   Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock - A simulation study [J].
Holland, BR ;
Penny, D ;
Hendy, MD .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 2003, 52 (02) :229-238
[9]   Inferring the root of a phylogenetic tree [J].
Huelsenbeck, JP ;
Bollback, JP ;
Levine, AM .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 2002, 51 (01) :32-43
[10]  
JUKES TH, 1969, MAMMALIAN PROTEIN ME, V3, P22