What is the best argument for maximum parsimony method in phylogenetic tree construction? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is the best way to account for GC-content shift while constructing nucleotide-based phylogenetic tree?What is the best method to estimate a phylogenetic tree from a large dataset of >1000 loci and >100 speciesState of the art mutation simulation softwareBiopython Phylogenetic Tree replace branch tip labels by sequence logosWhy does `pratchet()` in `phangorn` not find the most parsimonious trees?Random addition method for phylogenetic tree reconstructionIn calculating the retention index, why do we use the character state with the lowest frequency?How are the values of prop.part() and prop.clades() calculated?How do I interpret my phylogenetic tree construction from Glucosidases in the Actinobacteria class?What is outliers and how to determine outliers in the following phylogenetic tree?

Israeli soda type drink

What if Force was not Mass times Acceleration?

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?

Do I need to protect SFP ports and optics from dust/contaminants? If so, how?

Second order approximation of the loss function (Deep learning book, 7.33)

All ASCII characters with a given bit count

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?

My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer

Seek and ye shall find

Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?

How would this chord from "Rocket Man" be analyzed?

"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?

Would reducing the reference voltage of an ADC have any effect on accuracy?

AI positioning circles within an arc at equal distances and heights

What is "leading note" and what does it mean to "raise a note"?

Will I lose my paid in full property

Trumpet valves, lengths, and pitch

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department

How would I use different systems of magic when they are capable of the same effects?

Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?

"My boss was furious with me and I have been fired" vs. "My boss was furious with me and I was fired"

How to translate "red flag" into Spanish?



What is the best argument for maximum parsimony method in phylogenetic tree construction?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is the best way to account for GC-content shift while constructing nucleotide-based phylogenetic tree?What is the best method to estimate a phylogenetic tree from a large dataset of >1000 loci and >100 speciesState of the art mutation simulation softwareBiopython Phylogenetic Tree replace branch tip labels by sequence logosWhy does `pratchet()` in `phangorn` not find the most parsimonious trees?Random addition method for phylogenetic tree reconstructionIn calculating the retention index, why do we use the character state with the lowest frequency?How are the values of prop.part() and prop.clades() calculated?How do I interpret my phylogenetic tree construction from Glucosidases in the Actinobacteria class?What is outliers and how to determine outliers in the following phylogenetic tree?










1












$begingroup$


Beside it (maximum parsimony) being compuationally cheap what other good arguments are there for it? Is there any model behind this principle ? Why would one expect this principle to provide right phylogeny in any situation at all ?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
    $endgroup$
    – AliceD
    3 hours ago
















1












$begingroup$


Beside it (maximum parsimony) being compuationally cheap what other good arguments are there for it? Is there any model behind this principle ? Why would one expect this principle to provide right phylogeny in any situation at all ?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
    $endgroup$
    – AliceD
    3 hours ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Beside it (maximum parsimony) being compuationally cheap what other good arguments are there for it? Is there any model behind this principle ? Why would one expect this principle to provide right phylogeny in any situation at all ?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




Beside it (maximum parsimony) being compuationally cheap what other good arguments are there for it? Is there any model behind this principle ? Why would one expect this principle to provide right phylogeny in any situation at all ?







phylogenetics phylogeny






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









Ahmed AbdullahAhmed Abdullah

1755




1755







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
    $endgroup$
    – AliceD
    3 hours ago













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
    $endgroup$
    – AliceD
    3 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
$endgroup$
– AliceD
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
You cross-posted this on Bio - cross-posting is discouraged across the SE network.
$endgroup$
– AliceD
3 hours ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

I'd say maximum parsimony approaches assume genetic similarity is unlikely to occur by convergence, but likely a result of divergence. If this assumptions holds, finding the tree configuration that minimizes the number of unlikely events makes sense.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$


    The principle of parsimony states that the simplest explanation consistent with a data set should be chosen over more complex explanations... (Stewart 1993)




    Sometimes independent events in different lineages cause similarities in molecular sequences (or morphology or behavior or whatever characteristics one happens to be studying). These events are not true evidence of recently shared ancestry, but it is easy to mistake them as such evidence.



    The principle of parsimony asserts that we will be better off assuming the simplest case--that is, that identical characters are evidence of recent shared ancestry, since the simple explanation should be true more frequently than alternative explanations. There are cases for which the maximum parsimony model works very well, and there are cases for which maximum likelihood, distance matrix, Bayesian, or other models perform better.




    Stewart CB (1993) The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361, 603-607, doi:10.1038/361603a0.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
      $endgroup$
      – Michael G.
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Standage
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael G.
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Standage
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Standage
      6 hours ago


















    1












    $begingroup$

    Parsimony was a nice idea and developed the algorithms and tree methods towards its successors, maximum likelihood and Bayesian. The fundamental assumption of mutational independence at each alignment position was founded via parsimony. Just the recursion algorithm involved in reading a tree isn't trivial coding. Also Walter Fitch (Fitch Marigold method) was a nice guy.



    Weighted parsimony has performed well in simulation studies to prevent 'long branch attraction' artefacts. The key issue that was never resolved was how to objectively weight an MP analysis. It could be resurrected however, because machine learning ML could independently provide the weights in specific contexts. That a lot of "coulds" though.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "676"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbioinformatics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8512%2fwhat-is-the-best-argument-for-maximum-parsimony-method-in-phylogenetic-tree-cons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2












      $begingroup$

      I'd say maximum parsimony approaches assume genetic similarity is unlikely to occur by convergence, but likely a result of divergence. If this assumptions holds, finding the tree configuration that minimizes the number of unlikely events makes sense.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        2












        $begingroup$

        I'd say maximum parsimony approaches assume genetic similarity is unlikely to occur by convergence, but likely a result of divergence. If this assumptions holds, finding the tree configuration that minimizes the number of unlikely events makes sense.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          I'd say maximum parsimony approaches assume genetic similarity is unlikely to occur by convergence, but likely a result of divergence. If this assumptions holds, finding the tree configuration that minimizes the number of unlikely events makes sense.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I'd say maximum parsimony approaches assume genetic similarity is unlikely to occur by convergence, but likely a result of divergence. If this assumptions holds, finding the tree configuration that minimizes the number of unlikely events makes sense.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 9 hours ago









          PalliePallie

          1906




          1906





















              2












              $begingroup$


              The principle of parsimony states that the simplest explanation consistent with a data set should be chosen over more complex explanations... (Stewart 1993)




              Sometimes independent events in different lineages cause similarities in molecular sequences (or morphology or behavior or whatever characteristics one happens to be studying). These events are not true evidence of recently shared ancestry, but it is easy to mistake them as such evidence.



              The principle of parsimony asserts that we will be better off assuming the simplest case--that is, that identical characters are evidence of recent shared ancestry, since the simple explanation should be true more frequently than alternative explanations. There are cases for which the maximum parsimony model works very well, and there are cases for which maximum likelihood, distance matrix, Bayesian, or other models perform better.




              Stewart CB (1993) The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361, 603-607, doi:10.1038/361603a0.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                6 hours ago















              2












              $begingroup$


              The principle of parsimony states that the simplest explanation consistent with a data set should be chosen over more complex explanations... (Stewart 1993)




              Sometimes independent events in different lineages cause similarities in molecular sequences (or morphology or behavior or whatever characteristics one happens to be studying). These events are not true evidence of recently shared ancestry, but it is easy to mistake them as such evidence.



              The principle of parsimony asserts that we will be better off assuming the simplest case--that is, that identical characters are evidence of recent shared ancestry, since the simple explanation should be true more frequently than alternative explanations. There are cases for which the maximum parsimony model works very well, and there are cases for which maximum likelihood, distance matrix, Bayesian, or other models perform better.




              Stewart CB (1993) The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361, 603-607, doi:10.1038/361603a0.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                6 hours ago













              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$


              The principle of parsimony states that the simplest explanation consistent with a data set should be chosen over more complex explanations... (Stewart 1993)




              Sometimes independent events in different lineages cause similarities in molecular sequences (or morphology or behavior or whatever characteristics one happens to be studying). These events are not true evidence of recently shared ancestry, but it is easy to mistake them as such evidence.



              The principle of parsimony asserts that we will be better off assuming the simplest case--that is, that identical characters are evidence of recent shared ancestry, since the simple explanation should be true more frequently than alternative explanations. There are cases for which the maximum parsimony model works very well, and there are cases for which maximum likelihood, distance matrix, Bayesian, or other models perform better.




              Stewart CB (1993) The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361, 603-607, doi:10.1038/361603a0.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$




              The principle of parsimony states that the simplest explanation consistent with a data set should be chosen over more complex explanations... (Stewart 1993)




              Sometimes independent events in different lineages cause similarities in molecular sequences (or morphology or behavior or whatever characteristics one happens to be studying). These events are not true evidence of recently shared ancestry, but it is easy to mistake them as such evidence.



              The principle of parsimony asserts that we will be better off assuming the simplest case--that is, that identical characters are evidence of recent shared ancestry, since the simple explanation should be true more frequently than alternative explanations. There are cases for which the maximum parsimony model works very well, and there are cases for which maximum likelihood, distance matrix, Bayesian, or other models perform better.




              Stewart CB (1993) The powers and pitfalls of parsimony. Nature 361, 603-607, doi:10.1038/361603a0.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 7 hours ago









              Daniel StandageDaniel Standage

              2,865531




              2,865531











              • $begingroup$
                Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                6 hours ago
















              • $begingroup$
                Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
                $endgroup$
                – Michael G.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                7 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
                $endgroup$
                – Daniel Standage
                6 hours ago















              $begingroup$
              Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
              $endgroup$
              – Michael G.
              7 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Alot happened in phylogeny since 1993
              $endgroup$
              – Michael G.
              7 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              7 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              And yet the principle of parsimony remains the same, no?
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              7 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
              $endgroup$
              – Michael G.
              7 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Not entirely sure what you mean, but parsimony is still parsimony and the fundamental idea of assessing a tree as an aggregate of every individual alignment position remains the same.
              $endgroup$
              – Michael G.
              7 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              7 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              The OP asks why it even works at all, and my answer is that in some cases the simplest assumption is sufficient to infer the correct relationships. I don't see anything there that is compromised by the impressive advances in phylogeny inference that have occurred since.
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              7 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              6 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I think you're mistaking me for a proponent of parsimony as opposed to someone trying to answer a question. :-) Don't worry, I was just as alarmed (and amused) several years ago when Cladistics announced it would only accept parsimony trees!
              $endgroup$
              – Daniel Standage
              6 hours ago











              1












              $begingroup$

              Parsimony was a nice idea and developed the algorithms and tree methods towards its successors, maximum likelihood and Bayesian. The fundamental assumption of mutational independence at each alignment position was founded via parsimony. Just the recursion algorithm involved in reading a tree isn't trivial coding. Also Walter Fitch (Fitch Marigold method) was a nice guy.



              Weighted parsimony has performed well in simulation studies to prevent 'long branch attraction' artefacts. The key issue that was never resolved was how to objectively weight an MP analysis. It could be resurrected however, because machine learning ML could independently provide the weights in specific contexts. That a lot of "coulds" though.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                Parsimony was a nice idea and developed the algorithms and tree methods towards its successors, maximum likelihood and Bayesian. The fundamental assumption of mutational independence at each alignment position was founded via parsimony. Just the recursion algorithm involved in reading a tree isn't trivial coding. Also Walter Fitch (Fitch Marigold method) was a nice guy.



                Weighted parsimony has performed well in simulation studies to prevent 'long branch attraction' artefacts. The key issue that was never resolved was how to objectively weight an MP analysis. It could be resurrected however, because machine learning ML could independently provide the weights in specific contexts. That a lot of "coulds" though.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Parsimony was a nice idea and developed the algorithms and tree methods towards its successors, maximum likelihood and Bayesian. The fundamental assumption of mutational independence at each alignment position was founded via parsimony. Just the recursion algorithm involved in reading a tree isn't trivial coding. Also Walter Fitch (Fitch Marigold method) was a nice guy.



                  Weighted parsimony has performed well in simulation studies to prevent 'long branch attraction' artefacts. The key issue that was never resolved was how to objectively weight an MP analysis. It could be resurrected however, because machine learning ML could independently provide the weights in specific contexts. That a lot of "coulds" though.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Parsimony was a nice idea and developed the algorithms and tree methods towards its successors, maximum likelihood and Bayesian. The fundamental assumption of mutational independence at each alignment position was founded via parsimony. Just the recursion algorithm involved in reading a tree isn't trivial coding. Also Walter Fitch (Fitch Marigold method) was a nice guy.



                  Weighted parsimony has performed well in simulation studies to prevent 'long branch attraction' artefacts. The key issue that was never resolved was how to objectively weight an MP analysis. It could be resurrected however, because machine learning ML could independently provide the weights in specific contexts. That a lot of "coulds" though.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 7 hours ago









                  Michael G.Michael G.

                  9551218




                  9551218



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Bioinformatics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbioinformatics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8512%2fwhat-is-the-best-argument-for-maximum-parsimony-method-in-phylogenetic-tree-cons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      六本木駅

                      Integral that is continuous and looks like it converges to a geometric seriesTesting if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinitySummation of arithmetic-geometric series of higher orderGeometric series with polynomial exponentHow to Recognize a Geometric SeriesShowing an integral equality with series over the integersDiscontinuity of a series of continuous functionsReasons why a Series ConvergesSum of infinite geometric series with two terms in summationUsing geometric series for computing IntegralsLimit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$

                      Joseph Lister