Derrick J. Zwickl

Bayesian phylogenetic methods require the selection of prior probability distributions for all parameters of the model of evolution. These distributions allow one to incorporate prior information into a Bayesian analysis, but even in the absence of meaningful prior information, a prior distribution must be chosen. In such situations, researchers typically seek to choose a prior that will have little effect on the posterior estimates produced by an analysis, allowing the data to dominate. Sometimes a prior that is uniform (assigning equal prior probability density to all points within some range) is chosen for this purpose. In reality, the appropriate prior depends on the parameterization chosen for the model of evolution, a choice that is largely arbitrary. There is an extensive Bayesian literature on appropriate prior choice, and it has long been appreciated that there are parameterizations for which uniform priors can have a strong influence on posterior estimates. We here discuss the relationship between model parameterization and prior specification, using the general time-reversible model of nucleotide evolution as an example. We present Bayesian analyses of 10 simulated data sets obtained using a variety of prior distributions and parameterizations of the general time-reversible model. Uniform priors can produce biased parameter estimates under realistic conditions, and a variety of alternative priors avoid this bias.

David M. Hillis, David D. Pollock, Jimmy A. McGuire, Derrick J. Zwickl; Is Sparse Taxon Sampling a Problem for Phylogenetic Inference?, Systematic Biology, Volu

—Several authors have argued recently that extensive taxon sampling has a positive and important effect on the accuracy of phylogenetic estimates. However, other authors have argued that there is little benefit of extensive taxon sampling, and so phylogenetic problems can or should be reduced to a few exemplar taxa as a means of reducing the computational complexity of the phylogenetic analysis. In this paper we examined five aspects of study design that may have led to these different perspectives. First, we considered the measurement of phylogenetic error across a wide range of taxon sample sizes, and conclude that the expected error based on randomly selecting trees (which varies by taxon sample size) must be considered in evaluating error in studies of the effects of taxon sampling. Second, we addressed the scope of the phylogenetic problems defined by different samples of taxa, and argue that phylogenetic scope needs to be considered in evaluating the importance of taxon-sampling strategies. Third, we examined the claim that fast and simple tree searches are as effective as more thorough searches at finding near-optimal trees that minimize error. We show that a more complete search of tree space reduces phylogenetic error, especially as the taxon sample size increases. Fourth, we examined the effects of simple versus complex simulation models on taxonomic sampling studies. Although benefits of taxon sampling are apparent for all models, data generated under more complex models of evolution produce higher overall levels of error and show greater positive effects of increased taxon sampling. Fifth, we asked if different phylogenetic optimality criteria show different effects of taxon sampling. Although we found strong differences in effectiveness of different optimality criteria as a function of taxon sample size, increased taxon sampling improved the results from all the common optimality criteria. Nonetheless, the method that showed the lowest overall performance (minimum evolution) also showed the least improvement from increased taxon sampling. Taking each of these results into account re-enforces the conclusion that increased sampling of taxa is one of the most important ways to increase overall phylogenetic accuracy.

David D. Pollock, Derrick J. Zwickl, Jimmy A. McGuire, David M. Hillis, Keith Crandall; Increased Taxon Sampling Is Advantageous for Phylogenetic Inference, Sys