Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Distances that perfectly mislead.

Daniel H Huson¹, Mike Steel

¹Center for Bioinformatics, Tübingen University, Tuebingen, Germany. huson@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de

Systematic Biology

|June 19, 2004

Summary

Uncorrected distance data in phylogenetics can be misleading, appearing treelike but supporting incorrect evolutionary trees. This study reveals how such data can be deceptive, even when statistically consistent.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Displacement-Optimized Tanglegrams for Trees and Networks.

Molecular biology and evolution·2026

Same author

Counting Rankings of Tree-Child Networks.

Bulletin of mathematical biology·2026

Same author

Predicting the depth of the most recent common ancestor of a random sample of k species: the impact of phylogenetic tree shape.

Journal of mathematical biology·2026

Same author

MMonitor for real-time monitoring of microbial communities using long reads.

Cell reports methods·2025

Same author

Sketch, capture and layout phylogenies.

PLoS computational biology·2025

Same author

A Dichotomy Law for Certain Classes of Phylogenetic Networks.

Bulletin of mathematical biology·2025

Area of Science:

Phylogenetics
Computational Biology
Evolutionary Biology

Background:

Phylogenetic tree reconstruction often uses distances between taxa, calculated as the proportion of differing character states.
Uncorrected distance data can lead to statistically inconsistent tree inferences, differing from character-based methods like maximum likelihood or parsimony.
Deviations from additivity in distance data can signal unreliability, but sometimes misleading data appear perfectly treelike.

Purpose of the Study:

To demonstrate how uncorrected distance data can be simultaneously additive and misleading in phylogenetic tree reconstruction.
To investigate the conditions under which distance data appear treelike but support incorrect evolutionary trees.
To characterize the additivity of uncorrected distances on true and false trees.

Main Methods:

Analysis of multistate character data to derive uncorrected distances.
Application of Markov models of character evolution.
Characterization of distance additivity for four taxa and generalization to corrected distances under incorrect models.

Main Results:

Multistate character data can yield perfectly treelike, additive distances that support a tree different from the one defined by the characters themselves.
Under a Markov model, uncorrected distances can appear perfectly treelike and statistically consistent, masking underlying inconsistencies.
Precise conditions for distance additivity on true and false trees for four taxa were characterized.

Conclusions:

Uncorrected distance data can be statistically inconsistent and misleading, even when they appear perfectly treelike and additive.
Phylogenetic inferences based solely on uncorrected distances carry a risk of significant error.
Careful evaluation of distance data additivity and comparison with character-based methods are crucial for reliable phylogenetic reconstruction.

Related Experiment Videos