» Articles » PMID: 20696057

Performance of Criteria for Selecting Evolutionary Models in Phylogenetics: a Comprehensive Study Based on Simulated Datasets

Overview
Journal BMC Evol Biol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Biology
Date 2010 Aug 11
PMID 20696057
Citations 54
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Explicit evolutionary models are required in maximum-likelihood and Bayesian inference, the two methods that are overwhelmingly used in phylogenetic studies of DNA sequence data. Appropriate selection of nucleotide substitution models is important because the use of incorrect models can mislead phylogenetic inference. To better understand the performance of different model-selection criteria, we used 33,600 simulated data sets to analyse the accuracy, precision, dissimilarity, and biases of the hierarchical likelihood-ratio test, Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, and decision theory.

Results: We demonstrate that the Bayesian information criterion and decision theory are the most appropriate model-selection criteria because of their high accuracy and precision. Our results also indicate that in some situations different models are selected by different criteria for the same dataset. Such dissimilarity was the highest between the hierarchical likelihood-ratio test and Akaike information criterion, and lowest between the Bayesian information criterion and decision theory. The hierarchical likelihood-ratio test performed poorly when the true model included a proportion of invariable sites, while the Bayesian information criterion and decision theory generally exhibited similar performance to each other.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that the Bayesian information criterion and decision theory should be preferred for model selection. Together with model-adequacy tests, accurate model selection will serve to improve the reliability of phylogenetic inference and related analyses.

Citing Articles

Effect of Nitrogen Sources on Diatoms Growth and Nutritional Value for Enhancing Larval Performance.

Abdelhay R, El-Mor M, Salem M, Al-Sagheer A, Abd-Elhakim Y, Hassan B Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(4).

PMID: 40002948 PMC: 11851799. DOI: 10.3390/ani15040466.


A Guide to Phylogenomic Inference.

Patane J, Martins Jr J, Setubal J Methods Mol Biol. 2024; 2802:267-345.

PMID: 38819564 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-3838-5_11.


Hybridization, polyploidization, and morphological convergence make dozens of taxa into one chaotic genetic pool: a phylogenomic case of the species complex (Moraceae).

Wang X, Liao S, Zhang Z, Zhang J, Mei L, Li H Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1354812.

PMID: 38595762 PMC: 11002808. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1354812.


Extant Sequence Reconstruction: The Accuracy of Ancestral Sequence Reconstructions Evaluated by Extant Sequence Cross-Validation.

Sennett M, Theobald D J Mol Evol. 2024; 92(2):181-206.

PMID: 38502220 PMC: 10978691. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-024-10162-3.


Selection among site-dependent structurally constrained substitution models of protein evolution by approximate Bayesian computation.

Ferreiro D, Branco C, Arenas M Bioinformatics. 2024; 40(3).

PMID: 38374231 PMC: 10914458. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae096.


References
1.
Kimura M . A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980; 16(2):111-20. DOI: 10.1007/BF01731581. View

2.
Felsenstein J, Churchill G . A Hidden Markov Model approach to variation among sites in rate of evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 1996; 13(1):93-104. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025575. View

3.
Zharkikh A . Estimation of evolutionary distances between nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1994; 39(3):315-29. DOI: 10.1007/BF00160155. View

4.
Moriarty E, Cannatella D . Phylogenetic relationships of the North American chorus frogs (Pseudacris: Hylidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004; 30(2):409-20. DOI: 10.1016/s1055-7903(03)00186-6. View

5.
Alfaro M, Huelsenbeck J . Comparative performance of Bayesian and AIC-based measures of phylogenetic model uncertainty. Syst Biol. 2006; 55(1):89-96. DOI: 10.1080/10635150500433565. View