alexa Pitfalls in comparisons of genetic distances: a case study of the avian family Acrocephalidae.
Bioinformatics & Systems Biology

Bioinformatics & Systems Biology

Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology

Author(s): Fregin S, Haase M, Olsson U, Alstrm P, Fregin S, Haase M, Olsson U, Alstrm P

Abstract Share this page

Abstract Genetic distances are increasingly being used for identification and species delimitation, especially since the introduction of "barcoding". While for phylogenetic inferences great care is generally taken to choose the best-fit evolutionary model, this is usually neglected in calculating genetic distances. Moreover, distances obtained from others than best-fit models, different lengths of sequences, and even different loci are often freely compared. We examined the influence of different methods on calculating genetic distances using mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences for the passerine family Acrocephalidae. We found substantial differences between: (1) corrected distances based on the best-fit model (TrN+Γ) vs. uncorrected p-distances; (2) distances calculated based on different parts of the same gene; and (3) distances calculated using the methods of "complete deletion" vs. "pairwise deletion" for sequences that included uncertain nucleotides. All these methodological differences affected comparisons between species and potential taxonomical conclusions. We suggest that (1) different loci are incomparable. (2) Only perfectly homologous regions (same length, same part of locus) should be compared. (3) In the case of sequences with some uncertain nucleotides, only distances calculated by the method of "complete deletion" are fully comparable. (4) Only distances based on the optimal substitution model should be used. (5) Even within the same locus, corrected genetic distances are unique to the study in which they are calculated, as they are conditional on the particular dataset and model selected for that dataset. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This article was published in Mol Phylogenet Evol and referenced in Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version