title: Phylogenetic inference under varying proportions of indel-induced alignment gaps.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The effect of alignment gaps on phylogenetic accuracy has been the subject of numerous studies. In this study, we investigated the relationship between the total number of gapped sites and phylogenetic accuracy, when the gaps were introduced (by means of computer simulation) to reflect indel (insertion/deletion) events during the evolution of DNA sequences. The resulting (true) alignments were subjected to commonly used gap treatment and phylogenetic inference methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  (1) In general, there was a strong--almost deterministic--relationship between the amount of gap in the data and the level of phylogenetic accuracy when the alignments were very "gappy", (2) gaps resulting from deletions (as opposed to insertions) contributed more to the inaccuracy of phylogenetic inference, (3) the probabilistic methods (Bayesian, PhyML & "MLepsilon, " a method implemented in DNAML in PHYLIP) performed better at most levels of gap percentage when compared to parsimony (MP) and distance (NJ) methods, with Bayesian analysis being clearly the best, (4) methods that treat gapped sites as missing data yielded less accurate trees when compared to those that attribute phylogenetic signal to the gapped sites (by coding them as binary character data--presence/absence, or as in the MLepsilon method), and (5) in general, the accuracy of phylogenetic inference depended upon the amount of available data when the gaps resulted from mainly deletion events, and the amount of missing data when insertion events were equally likely to have caused the alignment gaps.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  When gaps in an alignment are a consequence of indel events in the evolution of the sequences, the accuracy of phylogenetic analysis is likely to improve if: (1) alignment gaps are categorized as arising from insertion events or deletion events and then treated separately in the analysis, (2) the evolutionary signal provided by indels is harnessed in the phylogenetic analysis, and (3) methods that utilize the phylogenetic signal in indels are developed for distance methods too. When the true homology is known and the amount of gaps is 20 percent of the alignment length or less, the methods used in this study are likely to yield trees with 90-100 percent accuracy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 46469-2320, USA. dwivedbz@notes.udayton.edu
authors.forename: Bhakti
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Dwivedi
authors.forename: Sudhindra R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Gadagkar
mesh_terms: D054643:INDEL Mutation; D008957:Models, Genetic; D010802:Phylogeny; D016415:Sequence Alignment
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Mar;42(3):827-37
references.pmid: 17101283
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2008 Feb;46(2):532-46
references.pmid: 18039582
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2003 Oct;52(5):696-704
references.pmid: 14530136
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Nov;23(11):2090-100
references.pmid: 16891377
references.citation: Comput Appl Biosci. 1997 Oct;13(5):555-6
references.pmid: 9367129
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 Sep 19;4(9):e1000172
references.pmid: 18787703
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2006 Feb;39(1):34-42
references.pmid: 15922672
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Sep 15;31(18):5338-48
references.pmid: 12954770
references.citation: Science. 2008 Jun 20;320(5883):1632-5
references.pmid: 18566285
references.citation: Genome Res. 2007 Jan;17(1):16-22
references.pmid: 17095709
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Mar 26;8:95
references.pmid: 18366758
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Aug;17(8):1251-8
references.pmid: 10908645
references.citation: J Mol Evol. 1985;22(2):160-74
references.pmid: 3934395
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2003 Aug;52(4):528-38
references.pmid: 12857643
references.citation: DNA Res. 2006 Oct 31;13(5):197-204
references.pmid: 17110395
references.citation: BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 21;6:63
references.pmid: 15780137
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Aug;44(2):724-40
references.pmid: 17512758
references.citation: Science. 2002 Nov 22;298(5598):1616-20
references.pmid: 12446909
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Aug;24(8):1586-91
references.pmid: 17483113
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2001 Aug;17(8):754-5
references.pmid: 11524383
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2007 Mar;42(3):817-26
references.pmid: 17011794
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Jun;31(3):943-60
references.pmid: 15120392
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Sep;21(9):1740-52
references.pmid: 15175415
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2004 Feb 12;20(3):407-15
references.pmid: 14960467
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2003 Aug 12;19(12):1572-4
references.pmid: 12912839
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Sep 9;105(36):13474-9
references.pmid: 18765810
references.citation: Syst Biol. 1998 Mar;47(1):125-33
references.pmid: 12064232
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1996 Sep;11(9):367-72
references.pmid: 21237881
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Jun;31(3):894-903
references.pmid: 15120387
references.citation: Genet Res. 2002 Dec;80(3):163-75
references.pmid: 12688655
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2005 Nov 1;21 Suppl 3:iii31-8
references.pmid: 16306390
references.citation: Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):1843-51
references.pmid: 14704170
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Sep;18(9):1823-7
references.pmid: 11504861
references.citation: Syst Biol. 1998 Mar;47(1):9-17
references.pmid: 12064243
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2006 Apr;55(2):314-28
references.pmid: 16611602
references.citation: J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 Jan 15;304(1):64-74
references.pmid: 15593277
references.citation: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Jun;31(3):865-73
references.pmid: 15120384
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 1994 May;11(3):504-12
references.pmid: 8015443