- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Milinkovitch, M. C.
- Articles by Hasegawa, M.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Milinkovitch, M. C.
- Articles by Hasegawa, M.
Genetics, Vol 144, 1817-1833, Copyright © 1996
INVESTIGATIONS |
Effects of Character Weighting and Species Sampling on Phylogeny Reconstruction: A Case Study Based on DNA Sequence Data in Cetaceans
M. C. Milinkovitch, R. G. LeDuc, J. Adachi, F. Farnir, M. Georges and M. Hasegawa
Department of Biology, Free University of Brussels, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, Department of Genetics, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium
Different phylogenetic analyses of the same genetic data set can yield conflicting results, depending on the choic of parameter settings and included taxa. This is particularly true in studies involving data sets where levels of homoplasy are high and likely to obscure the phylogenetic signal. Filtering of this phylogenetic noise can be attempted, with varying degrees of success, by using different weighting schemes and ingroup/outgroup choices, but it can be difficult to decide objectively which approach is best. Using a cytochrome b data set from cetaceans and artiodactyls, we examined the effects of a suite of parameter settings on the outcome of phylogenetic analyses. We tested 2968 combinations among the seven parameters that most often vary among phylogenetic studies. It is our contention that this sensitivity analysis identifies portions of the multidimensional parameter space where phylogenetic signal is most reliably recovered, and simple rules are given to guide the choice of settings. Portions of this data set have been used in previous studies with conflicting results, namely the monophyly vs. paraphyly of one of the two major recognized cetacean suborders, the toothed whales. This analysis strongly supports the sister relationship between sperm whales and baleen whales.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. L. Bush and C. Strobeck Phylogenetic Relationships of the Phasianidae Reveals Possible Non-Pheasant Taxa J. Hered., November 1, 2003; 94(6): 472 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Nikaido, F. Matsuno, H. Hamilton, R. L. Brownell Jr., Y. Cao, W. Ding, Z. Zuoyan, A. M. Shedlock, R. E. Fordyce, M. Hasegawa, et al. Retroposon analysis of major cetacean lineages: The monophyly of toothed whales and the paraphyly of river dolphins PNAS, June 19, 2001; 98(13): 7384 - 7389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. P. Goujon, V. M. Schneider, J. Grofti, J. Montigny, V. Jeantils, P. Astagneau, W. Rozenbaum, F. Lot, C. Frocrain-Herchkovitch, N. Delphin, et al. Phylogenetic Analyses Indicate an Atypical Nurse-to-Patient Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 J. Virol., March 15, 2000; 74(6): 2525 - 2532. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||


