English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The relative efficiencies of different protein-coding genes of the mitochondrial genome and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny (two whale species, cow, rat, mouse, opossum, chicken, frog, and three bony fish species) was evaluated. The tree-building methods examined were the neighbor joining (NJ), minimum evolution (ME), maximum parsimony (MP), and maximum likelihood (ML), and both nucleotide sequences and deduced amino acid sequences were analyzed. Generally speaking, amino acid sequences were better than nucleotide sequences in obtaining the true tree (topology) or trees close to the true tree. However, when only first and second codon positions data were used, nucleotide sequences produced reasonably good trees. Among the 13 genes examined, Nd5 produced the true tree in all tree-building methods or algorithms for both amino acid and nucleotide sequence data. Genes Cytb and Nd4 also produced the correct tree in most tree-building algorithms when amino acid sequence data were used. By contrast, Co2, Nd1, and Nd41 showed a poor performance. In general, large genes produced better results, and when the entire set of genes was used, all tree-building methods generated the true tree. In each tree-building method, several distance measures or algorithms were used, but all these distance measures or algorithms produced essentially the same results. The ME method, in which many different topologies are examined, was no better than the NJ method, which generates a single final tree. Similarly, an ML method, in which many topologies are examined, was no better than the ML star decomposition algorithm that generates a single final tree. In ML the best substitution model chosen by using the Akaike information criterion produced no better results than simpler substitution models. These results question the utility of the currently used optimization principles in phylogenetic construction. Relatively simple methods such as the NJ and ML star decomposition algorithms seem to produce as good results as those obtained by more sophisticated methods. The efficiencies of the NJ, ME, MP, and ML methods in obtaining the correct tree were nearly the same when amino acid sequence data were used. The most important factor in constructing reliable phylogenetic trees seems to be the number of amino acids or nucleotides used.

Efficiencies of different genes and different tree-building methods in recovering a known vertebrate phylogeny