z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Assessment of Protein Distance Measures and Tree-Building Methods for Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction
Author(s) -
Volker Hollich,
Lena Milchert,
Lars Arvestad,
Erik L. L. Sonnhammer
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
molecular biology and evolution
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.637
H-Index - 218
eISSN - 1537-1719
pISSN - 0737-4038
DOI - 10.1093/molbev/msi224
Subject(s) - tree (set theory) , phylogenetic tree , estimator , divergence (linguistics) , biology , set (abstract data type) , sequence (biology) , measure (data warehouse) , generality , algorithm , statistics , mathematics , computer science , data mining , combinatorics , genetics , gene , psychology , linguistics , philosophy , psychotherapist , programming language
Distance-based methods are popular for reconstructing evolutionary trees of protein sequences, mainly because of their speed and generality. A number of variants of the classical neighbor-joining (NJ) algorithm have been proposed, as well as a number of methods to estimate protein distances. We here present a large-scale assessment of performance in reconstructing the correct tree topology for the most popular algorithms. The programs BIONJ, FastME, Weighbor, and standard NJ were run using 12 distance estimators, producing 48 tree-building/distance estimation method combinations. These were evaluated on a test set based on real trees taken from 100 Pfam families. Each tree was used to generate multiple sequence alignments with the ROSE program using three evolutionary models. The accuracy of each method was analyzed as a function of both sequence divergence and location in the tree. We found that BIONJ produced the overall best results, although the average accuracy differed little between the tree-building methods (normally less than 1%). A noticeable trend was that FastME performed poorer than the rest on long branches. Weighbor was several orders of magnitude slower than the other programs. Larger differences were observed when using different distance estimators. Protein-adapted Jukes-Cantor and Kimura distance correction produced clearly poorer results than the other methods, even worse than uncorrected distances. We also assessed the recently developed Scoredist measure, which performed equally well as more complex methods.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom