Reconstruction of Phylogenetic Trees and Evolution of Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes

  • Masatoshi Nei
  • Andrey Rzhetsky
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 59)

Abstract

There are many different methods of phylogenetic reconstruction for DNA sequence data, and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed by considering various factors such as the constancy of evolutionary rate, extent of sequence divergence, variation in evolutionary rate over the sequence, number of nucleotides examined, number of sequences used, etc. It is shown that the bootstrap method of testing the stability of the branching pattern of a tree is not really accurate in evaluating the probability level of the clustering of a group of sequences and that it sometimes leads to an erroneous conclusion particularly when it is applied to the maximum parsimony method. Nevertheless, it is a useful method for obtaining a rough idea of the stability of the branching pattern of a tree. Application of the neighbor-joining and maximum parsimony bootstrap methods to Gyllensten et al.’s sequence data for the DQB locus alleles from primates confirmed the trans-species polymorphism between humans and gorillas, but the trans-species polymorphism between humans and chimpanzees was ambiguous. However, sequence data for the DQA locus alleles confirmed the trans-species polymorphism among all of the humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and Edwards, A.W.F: Phylogenetic analysis: Models and estimation procedures. Amer J Hum Genet 19: 233–257, 1967PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Efron, B.: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Felsenstein, J.: Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol 17: 368–376, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Felsenstein, J.: Confidence limits on phytogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–791, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felsenstein, J.: Phylogenies from molecular sequences: Inference and reliability. Ann Rev Genet 22: 521–565, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitch, W.M.: Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 20: 406–416, 1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitch, W.M. and Margoliash, E.: Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155: 279–284, 1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gyllensten, U.B. and Erlich, H.A.: Ancient roots for polymorphism at the HLA-DQa locus in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 86: 9986–9990, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gyllensten, U.B., Lashkari, D., and Erlich, H.A.: Allelic diversification at the class II DQB locus of the mammalian major histocompatibility complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci 87: 1835–1839, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein, J.: Origin of major histocompatibility complex polymorphism: The trans-species hypothesis. Hum Immunol 19: 155–162, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li, W.-H.: A statistical test of phylogenies estimated from sequence data. Mol Biol Evol 6: 424–435, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McConnell, T.L., Talbot, W.S., McIndoe, R.A., and Wakland, E.K.: The origin of MHC class II gene polymorphism within the genus Mus. Nature 332: 651–654, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nei, M.: Molecular Population Genetics And Evolution, North-Holland, Amsterdam and NewYork 1975Google Scholar
  14. Nei, M.: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York 1987Google Scholar
  15. Nei, M.: Relative efficiencies of different tree-making methods for molecular data. In M.M. Miyamoto and J.L. Cracraft (eds.): Recent advances in Phylogenetic studies of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York (submitted 1991)Google Scholar
  16. Nei, M. and Hughes, A.L.: Polymorphism and evolution of the major histocompatibility complex loci in mammals. In R.K. Selander, A.G. Clark, and T.S. Whittam (eds.): Evolution at the Molecular Level, pp. 222–247. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA 1991Google Scholar
  17. Nei, M., Stephens, J.C., and Saitou, N.: Methods for computing the standard error of branching points in an evolutionary tree and their application to molecular data from humans and apes. Mol Biol Evol 2: 66–85, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Saitou, N. and Imanishi, T.: Relative efficiencies of the Fitch-Margoliash, maximum- parsimony, maximum-likelihood, minimum-evolution, and neighbor-joining methods of phylogenetic tree construction in obtaining the correct tree. Mol Biol Evol 6: 514– 525, 1989Google Scholar
  19. Saitou, N. and Nei, M.: The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4: 406–425, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R.: Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco 1973Google Scholar
  21. Sokal, R.R. and Michener, C.D.: A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Sci Bull 28: 1409–1438, 1958Google Scholar
  22. Sourdis, J. and Krimbas, C.: Accuracy of phylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequence data. Mol Biol Evol 4: 159–166, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sourdis, J. and Nei, M.: Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Mol Biol Evol 5: 298–311, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tateno, Y., Nei, M., and Tajima, F.: Accuracy of Estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data: I. Distantly related species. J Mol Evol 18: 387–404, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masatoshi Nei
    • 1
  • Andrey Rzhetsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Institute of Molecular Evolutionary GeneticsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations