- DESCRIPTION
- INPUT FORMAT AND OPTIONS
- OUTPUT FORMAT
- THE ALGORITHM
- PROGRAM CONSTANTS
- PAST AND FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM
- TEST DATA SET
- CONTENTS OF OUTPUT FILE (if all numerical options are on)

The assumptions of the present model are:

- Each restriction site evolves independently.
- Different lineages evolve independently.
- Each site undergoes substitution at an expected rate which we specify.
- Substitutions consist of replacement of a nucleotide by one of the other three nucleotides, chosen at random.

10 35 4The first line of the data file will also contain a letter W following these numbers (and separated from them by a space) if the Weights option is being used. As with all programs using the weights option, a line or lines must then follow, before the data, with the weights for each site.

The site data are in standard form. Each species starts with a species name whose maximum length is given by the constant "nmlngth" (whose value in the program as distributed is 10 characters). The name should, as usual, be padded out to that length with blanks if necessary. The sites data then follows, one character per site (any blanks will be skipped and ignored). Like the DNA and protein sequence data, the restriction sites data may be either in the "interleaved" form or the "sequential" form. Note that if you are analyzing restriction sites data with the programs DOLLOP or MIX or other discrete character programs, at the moment those programs do not use the "aligned" or "interleaved" data format. Therefore you may want to avoid that format when you have restriction sites data that you will want to feed into those programs.

The presence of a site is indicated by a "+" and the absence by a "-". I have also allowed the use of "1" and "0" as synonyms for "+" and "-", for compatibility with MIX and DOLLOP which do not allow "+" and "-". If the presence of the site is unknown (for example, if the DNA containing it has been deleted so that one does not know whether it would have contained the site) then the state "?" can be used to indicate that the state of this site is unknown.

User-defined trees may follow the data in the usual way. The trees must be unrooted, which means that at their base they must have a trifurcation.

The options are selected by a menu, which looks like this:

Restriction site Maximum Likelihood method, version 3.5c Settings for this run: U Search for best tree? Yes A Are all sites detected? No G Global rearrangements? No J Randomize input order of sequences? No. Use input order L Site length? 6 O Outgroup root? No, use as outgroup species 1 E Extrapolation factor 100.0 M Analyze multiple data sets? No I Input sequences interleaved? Yes 0 Terminal type (IBM PC, VT52, ANSI)? ANSI 1 Print out the data at start of run No 2 Print indications of progress of run Yes 3 Print out tree Yes 4 Write out trees onto tree file? Yes Are these settings correct? (type Y or the letter for one to change)The U, J, O, M, and 0 options are the usual ones, described in the main documentation file. The I option selects between Interleaved and Sequential input data formats, and is described in the molecular sequence programs documentation file.

The G (global search) option causes, after the last species is added to the tree, each possible group to be removed and re-added. This improves the result, since the position of every species is reconsidered. It approximately triples the run-time of the program.

The three options specific to this program are the A, L, and E options. The L (Length) option allows the user to specify the length in bases of the restriction sites. Allowed values are 1 to 8 (the constant "maxcutter" controls the maximum allowed value). At the moment the program assumes that all sites have the same length (for example, that all enzymes are 6-base- cutters). The default value for this parameter is 6, which will be used if the L option is not invoked. A desirable future development for the package would be allowing the L parameter to be different for every site. It would also be desirable to allow for ambiguities in the recognition site, since some enzymes recognize 2 or 4 sequences. Both of these would require fairly complicated programming or else slower execution times.

The A (All) option specifies that all sites are detected, even those for which all of the species have the recognition sequence absent (character state "-"). The default condition is that it is assumed that such sites will not occur in the data. The likelihood computed when the A option is not used is the probability of the pattern of sites given that tree and conditional on the pattern not being all absences. This will be realistic for most data, except for cases in which the data are extracted from sites data for a larger number of species, in which case some of the site positions could have all absences in the subset of species. In such cases an effective way of analyzing the data would be to omit those sites and not use the A option, as such positions, even if not absolutely excluded, are nevertheless less likely than random to have been incorporated in the data set.

The E option allows the user to reset the extrapolation factor used in iterating branch lengths. This is initially 100. You may want to drop it to 10 or raise it to 1000. You can test whether that improves the result by comparing the resulting likelihoods. In particular, if too many of the branch lengths on the tree are zero or nearly zero, this may indicate that the extrapolation factor is too large.

The W (Weights) option, which is invoked in the input file rather than in the menu, allows the user to select a subset of sites to be analyzed. It is invoked in the usual way, except that only weights 0 and 1 are allowed. If the W option is not used, all sites will be analyzed. If the Weights option is used, there must be a W in the first line of the input file.

A table is printed showing the length of each tree segment, as well as (very) rough confidence limits on the length. As with DNAML, if a confidence limit is negative, this indicates that rearrangement of the tree in that region is not excluded, while if both limits are positive, rearrangement is still not necessarily excluded because the variance calculation on which the confidence limits are based results in an underestimate, which makes the confidence limits too narrow.

In addition to the confidence limits, the program performs a crude Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) for each branch of the tree. The program computes the ratio of likelihoods with and without this branch length forced to zero length. This done by comparing the likelihoods changing only that branch length. A truly correct LRT would force that branch length to zero and also allow the other branch lengths to adjust to that. The result would be a likelihood ratio closer to 1. Therefore the present LRT will err on the side of being too significant.

One should also realize that if you are looking not at a previously-chosen branch but at all branches, that you are seeing the results of multiple tests. With 20 tests, one is expected to reach significance at the P = .05 level purely by chance. You should therefore use a much more conservative significance level, such as .05 divided by the number of tests. The significance of these tests is shown by printing asterisks next to the confidence interval on each branch length. It is important to keep in mind that both the confidence limits and the tests are very rough and approximate, and probably indicate more significance than they should. Nevertheless, maximum likelihood is one of the few methods that can give you any indication of its own error; most other methods simply fail to warn the user that there is any error! (In fact, whole philosophical schools of taxonomists exist whose main point seems to be that there isn't any error, that the "most parsimonious" tree is the best tree by definition and that's that).

The log likelihood printed out with the final tree can be used to perform various likelihood ratio tests. Remember that testing one tree topology against another is not a simple matter, because two different tree topologies are not hypotheses that are nested one within the other. If the trees differ by only one branch swap, it seems to be conservative to test the difference between their likelihoods with one degree of freedom, but other than that little is known and more work on this is needed.

If the U (User Tree) option is used and more than one tree is supplied, the program also performs a statistical test of each of these trees against the one with highest likelihood. This test, invented by Kishino and Hasegawa (1989) uses the mean and variance of log-likelihood differences between trees, taken across sites. If the mean is more than 1.96 standard deviations different then the trees are declared significantly different. This use of the empirical variance of log-likelihood differences is more robust and nonparametric than the classical likelihood ratio test, and may to some extent compensate for the any lack of realism in the model underlying this program. The program prints out a table of the log-likelihoods of each tree, the differences of each from the highest one, the variance of that quantity as determined by the log- likelihood differences at individual sites, and a conclusion as to whether that tree is or is not significantly worse than the best one. The maximum number of user trees that can be analyzed is given by the constant "maxtrees" (set to 10 in the distribution copy to save storage space).

The branch lengths printed out are scaled in terms of expected numbers of base substitutions, not counting replacements of a base by itself. Of course, when a branch is twice as long this does not mean that there will be twice as much net change expected along it, since some of the changes occur in the same site and overlie or even reverse each other. Confidence limits on the branch lengths are also given. Of course a negative value of the branch length is meaningless, and a confidence limit overlapping zero simply means that the branch length is not necessarily significantly different from zero. Because of limitations of the numerical algorithm, branch length estimates of zero will often print out as small numbers such as 0.00001. If you see a branch length that small, it is really estimated to be of zero length.

Another possible source of confusion is the existence of negative values for the log likelihood. This is not really a problem; the log likelihood is not a probability but the logarithm of a probability, and since probabilities never exceed 1.0 this logarithm will typically be negative. The log likelihood is maximized by being made more positive: -30.23 is worse than -29.14. The log likelihood will not always be negative since a combinatorial constant has been left out of the expression for the likelihood. This does not affect the tree found or the likelihood ratios (or log likelihood differences) between trees.

The program uses an EM-algorithm to update one branch length at a time. I have described this method recently (Felsenstein, 1992). The likelihood that is being maximized is the same one used by Smouse and Li (1987) extended for multiple species. Especially when the A option is not used, the EM algorithm is quite slow by itself. I have therefore resorted to two ways of speeding it up. The first involves the constant "extrapol0". This involves an extrapolation. For example, if the EM algorith would increase the branch length by 0.0001 in a single cycle, this change is multiplied by 100 (or the value of extrapol) so that the change made would be 0.01. This carries with it the risk of overshoot and moving down on the likelihood surface. You may have to "tune" the value of extrapol to suit your data.

Even this change leaves the algorithm far too slow. I have therefore, every three cycles of the EM iteration, put in a step using Aitken's acceleration method (Aitken's delta-squared method found in most numerical analysis texts). This is a risky method that can also go downhill on the likelihood surface. You could disable it by changing the value of constant "iterations" to less than 4, but I think that you would then find the program unacceptably slow.

This program was developed by modifying DNAML version 3.1 and also adding some of the modifications that were added to DNAML version 3.2, with which it shares many of its data structures and much of its strategy.

There are a number of obvious directions in which the program needs to be modified in the future. Extension to allow for different rates of transition and transversion is straightforward, but would slow down the program considerably, as I have mentioned above. I have not included in the program any provision for saving and printing out multiple trees tied for highest likelihood, in part because an exact tie is unlikely.

Given that I have had to do all my own programming, these changes will take place gradually over future versions of PHYLIP. Users who get impatient for them are invited to discuss with me the possibility that they could make the required changes themselves. Of course I would particularly appreciate hearing about any problems users have with this program.

5 13 2 Alpha ++-+-++--+++- Beta ++++--+--+++- Gamma -+--+-++-+-++ Delta ++-+----++--- Epsilon ++++----++---

Restriction site Maximum Likelihood method, version 3.5c Recognition sequences all 6 bases long Sites absent from all species are assumed to have been omitted Name Sites ---- ----- Alpha ++-+-++--+ ++- Beta ++++--+--+ ++- Gamma -+--+-++-+ -++ Delta ++-+----++ --- Epsilon ++++----++ --- +-Gamma ! ! +Epsilon ! +--3 --1--2 +Delta ! ! ! +Beta ! +Alpha Remember: this is an unrooted tree! Ln Likelihood = -40.36177 Examined 15 trees Between And Length Approx. Confidence Limits ------- --- ------ ------- ---------- ------ 1 Gamma 0.11490 ( 0.11237, 0.11743) ** 1 2 0.00014 ( 0.00006, 0.00022) 2 3 0.05680 ( 0.05508, 0.05852) ** 3 Epsilon 0.00010 ( 0.00003, 0.00017) 3 Delta 0.01517 ( 0.01434, 0.01601) ** 2 Beta 0.00010 ( 0.00003, 0.00017) 1 Alpha 0.02470 ( 0.02359, 0.02580) ** * = significantly positive, P < 0.05 ** = significantly positive, P < 0.01

Back to the main PHYLIP page

Back to the