Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data
© 2016 The Authors..
Different analytical methods can yield competing interpretations of evolutionary history and, currently, there is no definitive method for phylogenetic reconstruction using morphological data. Parsimony has been the primary method for analysing morphological data, but there has been a resurgence of interest in the likelihood-based Mk-model. Here, we test the performance of the Bayesian implementation of the Mk-model relative to both equal and implied-weight implementations of parsimony. Using simulated morphological data, we demonstrate that the Mk-model outperforms equal-weights parsimony in terms of topological accuracy, and implied-weights performs the most poorly. However, the Mk-model produces phylogenies that have less resolution than parsimony methods. This difference in the accuracy and precision of parsimony and Bayesian approaches to topology estimation needs to be considered when selecting a method for phylogeny reconstruction.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2016 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:12 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Biology letters - 12(2016), 4 vom: 20. Apr. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
O'Reilly, Joseph E [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Bayesian |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 21.04.2017 Date Revised 06.10.2021 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM259560634 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM259560634 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224191450.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0865.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM259560634 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)27095266 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)20160081 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a O'Reilly, Joseph E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 21.04.2017 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 06.10.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2016 The Authors. | ||
| 520 | |a Different analytical methods can yield competing interpretations of evolutionary history and, currently, there is no definitive method for phylogenetic reconstruction using morphological data. Parsimony has been the primary method for analysing morphological data, but there has been a resurgence of interest in the likelihood-based Mk-model. Here, we test the performance of the Bayesian implementation of the Mk-model relative to both equal and implied-weight implementations of parsimony. Using simulated morphological data, we demonstrate that the Mk-model outperforms equal-weights parsimony in terms of topological accuracy, and implied-weights performs the most poorly. However, the Mk-model produces phylogenies that have less resolution than parsimony methods. This difference in the accuracy and precision of parsimony and Bayesian approaches to topology estimation needs to be considered when selecting a method for phylogeny reconstruction | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bayesian | |
| 650 | 4 | |a likelihood | |
| 650 | 4 | |a morphology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a parsimony | |
| 650 | 4 | |a phylogenetics | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Puttick, Mark N |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Parry, Luke |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tanner, Alastair R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tarver, James E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fleming, James |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pisani, Davide |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Donoghue, Philip C J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Biology letters |d 2005 |g 12(2016), 4 vom: 20. Apr. |w (DE-627)NLM163844992 |x 1744-957X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2016 |g number:4 |g day:20 |g month:04 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 12 |j 2016 |e 4 |b 20 |c 04 | ||