The optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis tends to give incorrect topologies when the number of nucleotides or amino acids used is small

In the maximum parsimony (MP) and minimum evolution (ME) methods of phylogenetic inference, evolutionary trees are constructed by searching for the topology that shows the minimum number of mutational changes required (M) and the smallest sum of branch lengths (S), respectively, whereas in the maximum likelihood (ML) method the topology showing the highest maximum likelihood (A) of observing a given data set is chosen. However, the theoretical basis of the optimization principle remains unclear. We therefore examined the relationships of M, S, and A for the MP, ME, and ML trees with those for the true tree by using computer simulation. The results show that M and S are generally greater for the true tree than for the MP and ME trees when the number of nucleotides examined (n) is relatively small, whereas A is generally lower for the true tree than for the ML tree. This finding indicates that the optimization principle tends to give incorrect topologies when n is small. To deal with this disturbing property of the optimization principle, we suggest that more attention should be given to testing the statistical reliability of an estimated tree rather than to finding the optimal tree with excessive efforts. When a reliability test is conducted, simplified MP, ME, and ML algorithms such as the neighbor-joining method generally give conclusions about phylogenetic inference very similar to those obtained by the more extensive tree search algorithms.

Accurate reconstruction of a known HIV-1 transmission history by phylogenetic tree analysis.

Phylogenetic analyses are increasingly used in attempts to clarify transmission patterns of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), but there is a continuing discussion about their validity because convergent evolution and transmission of minor HIV variants may obscure epidemiological patterns. Here we have studied a unique HIV-1 transmission cluster consisting of nine infected individuals, for whom the time and direction of each virus transmission was exactly known. Most of the transmissions occurred between 1981 and 1983, and a total of 13 blood samples were obtained approximately 2-12 years later. The p17 gag and env V3 regions of the HIV-1 genome were directly sequenced from uncultured lymphocytes. A true phylogenetic tree was constructed based on the knowledge about when the transmissions had occurred and when the samples were obtained. This complex, known HIV-1 transmission history was compared with reconstructed molecular trees, which were calculated from the DNA sequences by several commonly used phylogenetic inference methods [Fitch-Margoliash, neighbor-joining, minimum-evolution, maximum-likelihood, maximum-parsimony, unweighted pair group method using arithmetic averages (UPGMA), and a Fitch-Margoliash method assuming a molecular clock (KITSCH)]. A majority of the reconstructed trees were good estimates of the true phylogeny; 12 of 13 taxa were correctly positioned in the most accurate trees. The choice of gene fragment was found to be more important than the choice of phylogenetic method and substitution model. However, methods that are sensitive to unequal rates of change performed more poorly (such as UPGMA and KITSCH, which assume a constant molecular clock). The rapidly evolving V3 fragment gave better reconstructions than p17, but a combined data set of both p17 and V3 performed best. The accuracy of the phylogenetic methods justifies their use in HIV-1 research and argues against convergent evolution and selective transmission of certain virus variants.

Matchings and phylogenetic trees

This paper presents a natural coordinate system for phylogenetic trees using a correspondence with the set of perfect matchings in the complete graph. This correspondence produces a distance between phylogenetic trees, and a way of enumerating all trees in a minimal step order. It is useful in randomized algorithms because it enables moves on the space of trees that make random optimization strategies “mix” quickly. It also promises a generalization to intermediary trees when data are not decisive as to their choice of tree, and a new way of constructing Bayesian priors on tree space.