Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees

Evolutionary trees are often estimated from DNA or RNA sequence data. How much confidence should we have in the estimated trees? In 1985, Felsenstein [Felsenstein, J. (1985) Evolution 39, 783–791] suggested the use of the bootstrap to answer this question. Felsenstein’s method, which in concept is a straightforward application of the bootstrap, is widely used, but has been criticized as biased in the genetics literature. This paper concerns the use of the bootstrap in the tree problem. We show that Felsenstein’s method is not biased, but that it can be corrected to better agree with standard ideas of confidence levels and hypothesis testing. These corrections can be made by using the more elaborate bootstrap method presented here, at the expense of considerably more computation.

Comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods to map oligogenes by linkage

A sample of 95 sib pairs affected with insulin-dependent diabetes and typed with their normal parents for 28 markers on chromosome 6 has been analyzed by several methods. When appropriate parameters are efficiently estimated, a parametric model is equivalent to the β model, which is superior to nonparametric alternatives both in single point tests (as found previously) and in multipoint tests. Theory is given for meta-analysis combined with allelic association, and problems that may be associated with errors of map location and/or marker typing are identified. Reducing by multipoint analysis the number of association tests in a dense map can give a 3-fold reduction in the critical lod, and therefore in the cost of positional cloning.

Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees.

Evolutionary trees are often estimated from DNA or RNA sequence data. How much confidence should we have in the estimated trees? In 1985, Felsenstein [Felsenstein, J. (1985) Evolution 39, 783-791] suggested the use of the bootstrap to answer this question. Felsenstein's method, which in concept is a straightforward application of the bootstrap, is widely used, but has been criticized as biased in the genetics literature. This paper concerns the use of the bootstrap in the tree problem. We show that Felsenstein's method is not biased, but that it can be corrected to better agree with standard ideas of confidence levels and hypothesis testing. These corrections can be made by using the more elaborate bootstrap method presented here, at the expense of considerably more computation.