Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Mar;42(3):817-26. Epub 2006 Aug 22.

How should gaps be treated in parsimony? A comparison of approaches using simulation.

Author information

1
Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA. ogdet@isu.edu

Erratum in

  • Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008 Feb;46(2):807-8.

Abstract

Simulation with indels was used to produce alignments where true site homologies in DNA sequences were known; the gaps from these datasets were removed and the sequences were then aligned to produce hypothesized alignments. Both alignments were then analyzed under three widely used methods of treating gaps during tree reconstruction under the maximum parsimony principle. With the true alignments, for many cases (82%), there was no difference in topological accuracy for the different methods of gap coding. However, in cases where a difference was present, coding gaps as a fifth state character or as separate presence/absence characters outperformed treating gaps as unknown/missing data nearly 90% of the time. For the hypothesized alignments, on average, all gap treatment approaches performed equally well. Data sets with higher sequence divergence and more pectinate tree shapes with variable branch lengths are more affected by gap coding than datasets associated with shallower non-pectinate tree shapes.

PMID:
17011794
DOI:
10.1016/j.ympev.2006.07.021
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center