Cotton, J.A. and Page, R.D.M. (2003) Gene tree parsimony vs. uninode coding for phylogenetic reconstruction. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 29(2), pp. 298-308. (doi: 10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00109-X) (PMID:13678685)
Full text not currently available from Enlighten.
Publisher's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00109-X
Abstract
Simmons and Freudenstein (2002) have suggested that there are important weaknesses of gene tree parsimony in reconstructing phylogeny in the face of gene duplication, weaknesses that are addressed by Simmons et al.'s (2000) method of uninode coding. Here, we discuss Simmons and Freudenstein's criticisms and suggest a number of reasons why gene tree parsimony is preferable to uninode coding. During this discussion we introduce a number of recent developments of gene tree parsimony methods overlooked by Simmons and Freudenstein. Finally, we present a re-analysis of data from Page (2000) that produces a more reasonable phylogeny than that found by Simmons and Freudenstein, suggesting that gene tree parsimony outperforms uninode coding, at least on these data.
Item Type: | Articles |
---|---|
Status: | Published |
Refereed: | Yes |
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Page, Professor Roderic and Cotton, Professor James |
Authors: | Cotton, J.A., and Page, R.D.M. |
Subjects: | Q Science > QH Natural history > QH426 Genetics |
College/School: | College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine |
Journal Name: | Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution |
Publisher: | Elsevier |
ISSN: | 1055-7903 |
ISSN (Online): | 1095-9513 |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record