162:
in the vast majority of all cases, B and D will exhibit the same character state. Here, we will assume that they are both + (+ and - are assigned arbitrarily and swapping them is only a matter of definition). If this is the case, there are four remaining possibilities. A and C can both be +, in which case all taxa are the same and all the trees have the same length. A can be + and C can be -, in which case only one character is different, and we cannot learn anything, as all trees have the same length. Similarly, A can be - and C can be +. The only remaining possibility is that A and C are both -. In this case, however, we view either A and C, or B and D, as a group with respect to the other (one character state is ancestral, the other is derived, and the ancestral state does not define a group). As a consequence, when we have a "true tree" of this type, the more data we collect (i.e. the more characters we study), the more of them are homoplastic and support the wrong tree. Of course, when dealing with empirical data in phylogenetic studies of actual organisms, we never know the topology of the true tree, and the more parsimonious (AC) or (BD) might well be the correct hypothesis.
42:) is a form of systematic error whereby distantly related lineages are incorrectly inferred to be closely related. LBA arises when the amount of molecular or morphological change accumulated within a lineage is sufficient to cause that lineage to appear similar (thus closely related) to another long-branched lineage, solely because they have both undergone a large amount of change, rather than because they are related by descent. Such bias is more common when the overall divergence of some taxa results in long branches within a
810:
144:
analysis. Then remove B and replace A, running the analysis again. If either of the taxa appears at a different branch point in the absence of the other, there is evidence of long branch attraction. Since long branches can't possibly attract one another when only one is in the analysis, consistent taxon placement between treatments would indicate long branch attraction is not a problem.
487:
822:
153:
99:
These problems may be minimized by using methods that correct for multiple substitutions at the same site, by adding taxa related to those with the long branches that add additional true synapomorphies to the data, or by using alternative slower evolving traits (e.g. more conservative gene regions).
161:
Assume for simplicity that we are considering a single binary character (it can either be + or -) distributed on the unrooted "true tree" with branch lengths proportional to amount of character state change, shown in the figure. Because the evolutionary distance from B to D is small, we assume that
139:
The recognition of long-branch attraction implies that there is some other evidence that suggests that the phylogeny is incorrect. For example, two different sources of data (i.e. molecular and morphological) or even different methods or partition schemes might support different placement for the
71:
are also susceptible. A simple hypothetical example can be found in
Felsenstein 1978 where it is demonstrated that for certain unknown "true" trees, some methods can show bias for grouping long branches, ultimately resulting in the inference of a false sister relationship. Often this is because
135:
The opposite effect may also be observed, in that if two (or more) branches exhibit particularly slow evolution among a wider, fast evolving group, those branches may be misinterpreted as closely related. As such, "long branch attraction" can in some ways be better expressed as "branch length
143:
A simple and effective method for determining whether or not long branch attraction is affecting tree topology is the SAW method, named for Siddal and
Whiting. If long branch attraction is suspected between a pair of taxa (A and B), simply remove taxon A ("saw" off the branch) and re-run the
54:
is often also long-branched. The frequency of true LBA is unclear and often debated, and some authors view it as untestable and therefore irrelevant to empirical phylogenetic inference. Although often viewed as a failing of
76:
of one or more characters included in the analysis has occurred in multiple taxa. Although they were derived independently, these shared traits can be misinterpreted in the analysis as being shared due to common ancestry.
156:
An example of long branch attraction. On this "true tree", branches leading to A and C might be expected to have a higher number of character state transformations than the internal branch or branches leading to B and
140:
long-branched groups. Hennig's
Auxiliary Principle suggests that synapomorphies should be viewed as de facto evidence of grouping unless there is specific contrary evidence (Hennig, 1966; Schuh and Brower, 2009).
88:, LBA is a result of the way clustering algorithms work: terminals or taxa with many autapomorphies (character states unique to a single branch) may by chance exhibit the same states as those on another branch (
238:
Anderson, F. E., & Swofford, D. L. (2004). Should we be worried about long-branch attraction in real data sets? Investigations using metazoan 18S rDNA. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 33(2),
124:
rates are high, the probability that two lineages will evolve the same nucleotide at the same site increases. When this happens, a phylogenetic analysis may erroneously interpret this
278:"Experimental signal dissection and method sensitivity analyses reaffirm the potential of fossils and morphology in the resolution of the relationship of angiosperms and Gnetales"
67:
LBA was first recognized as problematic when analyzing discrete morphological character sets under parsimony criteria, however
Maximum Likelihood analyses of
425:
257:
Brower, AVZ. 2017. Statistical consistency and phylogenetic inference: a brief review. Cladistics, 34(5), 562-567 (DOI: 10.1111/cla.12216).
266:
Felsenstein, J. (1978). Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic
Biology, 27(4), 401-410.
620:
112:
analyses is that rapidly evolving lineages may be inferred to be sister taxa, regardless of their true relationships. For example, in
580:
116:
sequence-based analyses, the problem arises when sequences from two (or more) lineages evolve rapidly. There are only four possible
56:
660:
396:
Grishin, Nick V. "Long Branch
Attraction." Long Branch Attraction. Butterflies of America, 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 15 Sept. 2014. <
665:
598:
675:
605:
59:
methodology, LBA could in principle result from a variety of scenarios and be inferred under multiple analytical paradigms.
585:
492:
448:
418:
775:
701:
826:
655:
453:
85:
68:
277:
848:
814:
411:
790:
468:
51:
627:
533:
89:
73:
670:
552:
360:
Huelsenbeck, J. P. and D. M. Hillis. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case.
593:
547:
463:
343:
308:
248:
Huelsenbeck, J. P. (1997). Is the
Felsenstein zone a fly trap?. Systematic Biology, 46(1), 69-74.
221:
521:
300:
213:
205:
47:
610:
564:
335:
292:
195:
711:
685:
339:
17:
842:
680:
650:
557:
434:
200:
183:
31:
347:
312:
225:
785:
731:
726:
721:
706:
514:
509:
129:
93:
81:
397:
92:). A phylogenetic analysis will group these taxa together as a clade unless other
780:
473:
482:
458:
117:
304:
209:
136:
attraction". However, it is typically long branches that exhibit attraction.
795:
759:
754:
749:
644:
526:
125:
109:
43:
217:
486:
121:
296:
152:
96:
outweigh the homoplastic features to group together true sister taxa.
326:
Siddall, M. E.; Whiting, M. F. (1999). "Long-Branch
Abstractions".
615:
543:
276:
Coiro, Mario; Chomicki, Guillaume; Doyle, James A. (August 2018).
151:
132:(i.e., evolving once in the common ancestor of the two lineages).
403:
391:
Biological
Systematics: Principles and Applications, (2nd edn.)
407:
113:
46:. Long branches are often attracted to the base of a
768:
742:
694:
636:
573:
502:
441:
398:http://butterfliesofamerica.com/knowhow/LBA.htm
50:, because the lineage included to represent an
419:
8:
386:. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
389:Schuh, R. T. and Brower, A. V. Z. (2009):
426:
412:
404:
177:
175:
199:
171:
393:Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
379:. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
7:
821:
184:"A review of long-branch attraction"
340:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1999.tb00391.x
25:
182:Bergsten, Johannes (2005-04-01).
27:Systematic error in phylogenetics
820:
809:
808:
661:Phylogenetic comparative methods
485:
201:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x
666:Phylogenetic niche conservatism
1:
586:Phylogenetic reconciliation
493:Evolutionary biology portal
449:Computational phylogenetics
865:
804:
776:Phylogenetic nomenclature
480:
384:Phylogenetic Systematics
375:Felsenstein, J. (2004):
69:DNA or protein sequences
656:Molecular phylogenetics
606:Distance-matrix methods
454:Molecular phylogenetics
676:Phylogenetics software
590:Probabilistic methods
539:Long branch attraction
158:
36:long branch attraction
18:Long-branch attraction
469:Evolutionary taxonomy
377:Inferring Phylogenies
155:
108:The result of LBA in
628:Three-taxon analysis
534:Phylogenetic network
74:convergent evolution
671:Phylogenetic signal
382:Hennig, W. (1966):
297:10.1017/pab.2018.23
86:clustering analyses
599:Bayesian inference
594:Maximum likelihood
159:
836:
835:
581:Maximum parsimony
574:Inference methods
522:Phylogenetic tree
48:phylogenetic tree
16:(Redirected from
856:
824:
823:
812:
811:
611:Neighbor-joining
565:Ghost population
495:
490:
489:
428:
421:
414:
405:
368:
358:
352:
351:
323:
317:
316:
282:
273:
267:
264:
258:
255:
249:
246:
240:
236:
230:
229:
203:
179:
122:DNA substitution
21:
864:
863:
859:
858:
857:
855:
854:
853:
839:
838:
837:
832:
800:
764:
738:
712:Symplesiomorphy
690:
632:
569:
498:
491:
484:
478:
442:Relevant fields
437:
432:
372:
371:
359:
355:
325:
324:
320:
280:
275:
274:
270:
265:
261:
256:
252:
247:
243:
237:
233:
181:
180:
173:
168:
150:
106:
65:
57:parsimony-based
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
862:
860:
852:
851:
841:
840:
834:
833:
831:
830:
818:
805:
802:
801:
799:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
772:
770:
766:
765:
763:
762:
757:
752:
746:
744:
740:
739:
737:
736:
735:
734:
729:
724:
716:
715:
714:
709:
698:
696:
692:
691:
689:
688:
686:Phylogeography
683:
678:
673:
668:
663:
658:
653:
648:
640:
638:
637:Current topics
634:
633:
631:
630:
625:
624:
623:
618:
613:
603:
602:
601:
596:
588:
583:
577:
575:
571:
570:
568:
567:
562:
561:
560:
550:
541:
536:
531:
530:
529:
519:
518:
517:
506:
504:
503:Basic concepts
500:
499:
497:
496:
481:
479:
477:
476:
471:
466:
461:
456:
451:
445:
443:
439:
438:
433:
431:
430:
423:
416:
408:
402:
401:
394:
387:
380:
370:
369:
353:
318:
291:(3): 490–510.
268:
259:
250:
241:
231:
194:(2): 163–193.
170:
169:
167:
164:
149:
146:
105:
102:
94:synapomorphies
64:
61:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
861:
850:
849:Phylogenetics
847:
846:
844:
829:
828:
819:
817:
816:
807:
806:
803:
797:
794:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
773:
771:
767:
761:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
747:
745:
741:
733:
730:
728:
725:
723:
720:
719:
717:
713:
710:
708:
705:
704:
703:
700:
699:
697:
693:
687:
684:
682:
681:Phylogenomics
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
651:DNA barcoding
649:
647:
646:
642:
641:
639:
635:
629:
626:
622:
621:Least squares
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
597:
595:
592:
591:
589:
587:
584:
582:
579:
578:
576:
572:
566:
563:
559:
558:Ghost lineage
556:
555:
554:
551:
549:
545:
542:
540:
537:
535:
532:
528:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
513:
512:
511:
508:
507:
505:
501:
494:
488:
483:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
450:
447:
446:
444:
440:
436:
435:Phylogenetics
429:
424:
422:
417:
415:
410:
409:
406:
399:
395:
392:
388:
385:
381:
378:
374:
373:
366:
363:
357:
354:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
322:
319:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
279:
272:
269:
263:
260:
254:
251:
245:
242:
235:
232:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
197:
193:
189:
185:
178:
176:
172:
165:
163:
154:
147:
145:
141:
137:
133:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
103:
101:
97:
95:
91:
87:
83:
78:
75:
70:
62:
60:
58:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
32:phylogenetics
19:
825:
813:
786:Sister group
769:Nomenclature
732:Autapomorphy
727:Synapomorphy
707:Plesiomorphy
695:Group traits
643:
538:
515:Cladogenesis
510:Phylogenesis
390:
383:
376:
364:
361:
356:
331:
327:
321:
288:
285:Paleobiology
284:
271:
262:
253:
244:
234:
191:
187:
160:
142:
138:
134:
130:synapomorphy
110:evolutionary
107:
98:
82:phylogenetic
79:
66:
39:
35:
29:
781:Crown group
743:Group types
474:Systematics
362:Syst. Biol.
118:nucleotides
459:Cladistics
328:Cladistics
188:Cladistics
166:References
796:Supertree
760:Polyphyly
755:Paraphyly
750:Monophyly
722:Apomorphy
702:Primitive
645:PhyloCode
527:Cladogram
367::247-264.
305:0094-8373
210:1096-0031
126:homoplasy
120:and when
90:homoplasy
44:phylogeny
843:Category
815:Category
718:Derived
464:Taxonomy
348:67853737
334:: 9–24.
313:91488394
239:440-451.
226:55273819
218:34892859
157:D.
52:outgroup
827:Commons
553:Lineage
148:Example
104:Results
346:
311:
303:
224:
216:
208:
63:Causes
791:Basal
616:UPGMA
548:Grade
544:Clade
400:>.
344:S2CID
309:S2CID
281:(PDF)
222:S2CID
128:as a
301:ISSN
214:PMID
206:ISSN
84:and
546:vs
336:doi
293:doi
196:doi
114:DNA
80:In
40:LBA
30:In
845::
365:42
342:.
332:15
330:.
307:.
299:.
289:44
287:.
283:.
220:.
212:.
204:.
192:21
190:.
186:.
174:^
34:,
427:e
420:t
413:v
350:.
338::
315:.
295::
228:.
198::
38:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
