Why some clades have low bootstrap frequencies and high Bayesian posterior probabilities
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Ricardo García-Sandoval in
Current site
Google Scholar
Bayesian posterior probabilities are wrongly considered by many systematists as indicative of character support, and equivalent to non-parametric bootstrap frequencies. Here I argue against this view. Non-parametric bootstrap is indicative of the amount of evidence in a data matrix supporting each clade in the tree, while Bayesian posterior probabilities are not intended to represent that property. Clades with high posterior probability may not have a large amount of characters favouring them, and their frequencies are the result of the particular sampling procedure of the Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method, which tends to sample very similar topologies according to their posterior probabilities. Both metrics may relate to the notion of confidence, but depict different properties.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Alfaro ME, , Zoller S, , Lutzoni F. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol Biol Evol. 20:255–266.
-
Bouckaert R, , Heled J, , Kühnert D, , Vaughan TG, , Wu C-H, , Xie D, , Suchard MA, , Rambaut A, , Drummond AJ. 2014. BEAST2: A software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLOS Comput Biol. 10:e1003537.
-
Cranston KA, , Rannala B. 2007. Summarizing a posterior distribution of trees using agreement subtrees. Syst Biol. 56:578–590.
-
Farris JS, , Albert VA, , Källersjö M, , Limpscomb D, , Kluge AG. 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics. 12:99–124.
-
Farris JS, , Goloboff PA. 2008. Is REP a measure of ‘objective support’? Cladistics. 24:1065–1069.
-
Farris JS.2013. Popper: not Bayes or Rieppel. Cladistics. 29:230–232.
-
Felsenstein J.1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 39:738–791.
-
Felsenstein JS, , Kishino H. 1993. Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on phylogenies? A reply to Hillis and Bull. Syst Biol. 42:193–200.
-
Goldberg EE, , Lancaster LT, , Ree RH. 2011. Phylogenetic inference of reciprocal effects between geographic range evolution and diversification. Syst Biol. 60:451–65.
-
Goloboff PA, , Farris JS, , Kallersjo M, , Oxelman B, , Ramirez MJ, , Szumik CA. 2003. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics. 19:324–332.
-
Heled J, , Bouckaert RR. 2013. Looking for trees in the forest: summary tree from posterior samples. BMC Evolut Biol. 13:221.
-
Hillis DM, , Bull JJ, , White ME, , Badgett MR, , Molineux IJ. 1993. Experimental approaches to phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol. 42:90–92.
-
Hillis DM, , Heath TA, , St John K. 2005. Analysis and visualisation of tree space. Syst Biol. 54:471–482.
-
Höhna S, , Drummond AJ. 2012. Guided tree topology proposals for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 61:1–11.
-
Holder M, , Lewis PO. 2003. Phylogeny estimation: traditional and bayesian approaches. Nature Rev Genet. 4:275–284.
-
Holmes S.2003. Bootstrapping Phylogenetic Trees: Theory and Methods. Stat. Sci. 18:241–255.
-
Huelsenbeck JP, , Larget B, , Miller RE, , Ronquist F. 2002. Potential applications and pitfalls of bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst Biol. 51:673–688.
-
Huelsenbeck JP, , Rannala B. 2004. Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst Biol. 53:904–913.
-
Kishino H, , Hasegawa M. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. J Mol Evol. 29:170–179.
-
Maddison DR.1991. Discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimoniosus trees. Syst Zool. 40:315–328.
-
Maddison WP, , Midford PE, , Otto SP. 2007. Estimating a binary character's effect on speciation and extinction. Syst Biol. 56:701–710.
-
O'Meara BC.2012. Evolutionary Inferences from Phylogenies: A Review of Methods. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 43:267–285.
-
Ramírez MJ. 2005. Resampling measures of group support: a reply to Grant and Kluge. Cladistics. 21:83–89.
-
Ramírez MJ. 2006. Further problems with the incongruence length difference test: “hypercongruence” effect and multiple comparisons. Cladistics. 289–295:289–295.
-
Ronquist F, , van der Mark P, , Huelsenbeck JP, . 2009. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using MrBayes. In: Lemey P, , Salemi M, , Vandamme A-M, editors. The phylogenetic handbook. A practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing. New York: Cambridge University Press; pp. 210–266.
-
Ronquist F, , Teslenko M, , van der Mark P, , Ayres DL, , Darling A, , Höhna S, , Larget B, , Liu L, , Suchard M, , Huelsenbeck JP. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol. 61:539–542.
-
Sanderson MJ, , Wojciechowski MF. 2000. Improved bootstrap confidence limits in large-scale phylogenies, with an example from Neo-Astragalus (Leguminosae). Syst Biol. 49:671–685.
-
Simmons MP, , Pickett KM, , Miya M. 2004. How meaningful are bayesian support values. Mol Biol Evol. 21:188–199.
-
Sober E.2004. The contest between parsimony and likelihood. Syst Biol. 53:644–653.
-
Strimmer K, , von Haeseler A, . 2009. Genetic distances and nucleotide substitution models. In: Lemey P, , Salemi M, , Vandamme A-M, editors. The phylogenetic handbook. A practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing. New York: Cambridge University Press; pp. 111–125.
-
Templeton AR.1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution. 37:221–244.
-
Wertheim JO, , Sanderson MJ, , Worobey M, , Bjork A. 2010. Relaxed molecular clocks, the bias–variance trade-off, and the quality of phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 59:1–8.
-
Wood HM, , Griswold CE, , Gillespie RG. 2012. Phylogenetic placement of pelican spiders (Achaeidae, Araneae), with insight into evolution of the “neck” and predatory behaviours of the superfamily Palpimanoidea. Cladistics. 28:598–626.
-
Yang Z.2006. Computational molecular evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1118 | 92 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 29 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 46 | 3 | 0 |
Why some clades have low bootstrap frequencies and high Bayesian posterior probabilities
In: Israel Journal of Ecology and EvolutionSearch for other papers by Ricardo García-Sandoval in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bayesian posterior probabilities are wrongly considered by many systematists as indicative of character support, and equivalent to non-parametric bootstrap frequencies. Here I argue against this view. Non-parametric bootstrap is indicative of the amount of evidence in a data matrix supporting each clade in the tree, while Bayesian posterior probabilities are not intended to represent that property. Clades with high posterior probability may not have a large amount of characters favouring them, and their frequencies are the result of the particular sampling procedure of the Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method, which tends to sample very similar topologies according to their posterior probabilities. Both metrics may relate to the notion of confidence, but depict different properties.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1118 | 92 | 21 |
| Full Text Views | 29 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 46 | 3 | 0 |
