In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 92, Heft 3, S. 135-152
In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 83, Heft 6, S. 659-684
In the last few years, several statistically consistent consensus methods for species tree inference have been devised that are robust to the gene tree discordance caused by incomplete lineage sorting in unstructured ancestral populations. One source of gene tree discordance that has only recently been identified as a potential obstacle for phylogenetic inference is ancestral population structure. In this article, we describe a general model of ancestral population structure, and by relying on a single carefully constructed example scenario, we show that the consensus methods Democratic Vote, STEAC, STAR, R* Consensus, Rooted Triple Consensus, Minimize Deep Coalescences, and Majority-Rule Consensus are statistically inconsistent under the model. We find that among the consensus methods evaluated, the only method that is statistically consistent in the presence of ancestral population structure is GLASS/Maximum Tree. We use simulations to evaluate the behavior of the various consensus methods in a model with ancestral population structure, showing that as the number of gene trees increases, estimates on the basis of GLASS/Maximum Tree approach the true species tree topology irrespective of the level of population structure, whereas estimates based on the remaining methods only approach the true species tree topology if the level of structure is low. However, through simulations using species trees both with and without ancestral population structure, we show that GLASS/Maximum Tree performs unusually poorly on gene trees inferred from alignments with little information. This practical limitation of GLASS/Maximum Tree together with the inconsistency of other methods prompts the need for both further testing of additional existing methods and development of novel methods under conditions that incorporate ancestral population structure.
In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 85, Heft 6, S. i-i
In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 85, Heft 6, S. 954-954
Abstract High-dimensional datasets on cultural characters contribute to uncovering insights about factors that influence cultural evolution. Because cultural variation in part reflects descent processes with a hierarchical structure – including the descent of populations and vertical transmission of cultural traits – methods designed for hierarchically structured data have potential to find applications in the analysis of cultural variation. We adapt a network-based hierarchical clustering method for use in analysing cultural variation. Given a set of entities, the method constructs a similarity network, hierarchically depicting community structure among them. We illustrate the approach using four datasets: pronunciation variation in the US mid-Atlantic region, folklore variation in worldwide cultures, phonemic variation across worldwide languages and temporal variation in first names in the US. In these examples, the method provides insights into processes that affect cultural variation, uncovering geographic and other influences on observed patterns and cultural characters that make important contributions to them.
In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 85, Heft 6, S. 825-857
In: Human biology: the international journal of population genetics and anthropology ; the official publication of the American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Band 85, Heft 6, S. 859-900