Coelomata and Not Ecdysozoa: Evidence From Genome-Wide Phylogenetic Analysis

Table 2.

Distribution of the Metazoan Tree Topologies for Concatenated Sequences of Macromolecular Complex Subunits With Different Tree Construction Methods


con8 ID

NJ

MP(F)

MP(S)

ML(AH)

ML(Y)

ML(TP)
CH C(87%) C(96%) C(60%) C(58%) C(54%) C(100%)
CL C(100%) C(99%) C(87%) C(86%) C(88%) C(72%)
DP C(82%) C(87%) C(71%) C(51%) C(50%) C(64%)
LF C(100%) C(100%) C(99%) C(100%) C(100%) C(80%)
PR C(92%) E(84%) E(85%) E(73%) E(75%) E(82%)
RI C(100%) C(77%) C(75%) E(65%) E(72%) E(90%)
RP C(93%) C(54%) E(69%) E(76%) E(72%) E(89%)
TF
C(98%)
C(87%)
C(99%)
C(83%)
C(85%)
C(70%)
  • For each complex (Table 1) and each method, the preferred tree topology (C, coelomate, E, ecdysozoan) and the bootstrap support or, in the case of ML(TP), Expected Likelihood Weight are given in parentheses. NJ, neighbor-joining (nearly identical results were obtained with the FITCH program; data not shown); MP(F), maximum parsimony (Felsenstein, PHYLIP); MP(S), maximum parsimony (Swofford, PAUP*); ML (AH), Maximum Likelihood (Adachi-Hasegawa; MOLPHY); ML (Y), Maximum Likelihood (Yang; PAML); ML (TP), Maximum Likelihood (Strimmer-von Haeseler; TREE-PUZZLE).

This Article

  1. Genome Res. 14: 29-36

Preprint Server