uu.seUppsala University Publications

References$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt145",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt145",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt145",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:upper:referencesLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt146_j_idt148",{id:"formSmash:upper:j_idt146:j_idt148",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_upper_j_idt146_j_idt148",target:"formSmash:upper:j_idt146:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});

Fundamental differences between the Methods of Maximum Likelihood and Maximum Posterior Probabilities in PhylogeneticsPrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_some",{id:"formSmash:some",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_some",multiple:true}); PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_all",{id:"formSmash:all",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_all",multiple:true});
function selectAll()
{
var panelSome = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:some"));
var panelAll = $(PrimeFaces.escapeClientId("formSmash:all"));
panelAll.toggle();
toggleList(panelSome.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
toggleList(panelAll.get(0).childNodes, panelAll);
}
/*Toggling the list of authorPanel nodes according to the toggling of the closeable second panel */
function toggleList(childList, panel)
{
var panelWasOpen = (panel.get(0).style.display == 'none');
// console.log('panel was open ' + panelWasOpen);
for (var c = 0; c < childList.length; c++) {
if (childList[c].classList.contains('authorPanel')) {
clickNode(panelWasOpen, childList[c]);
}
}
}
/*nodes have styleClass ui-corner-top if they are expanded and ui-corner-all if they are collapsed */
function clickNode(collapse, child)
{
if (collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-top')) {
// console.log('collapse');
child.click();
}
if (!collapse && child.classList.contains('ui-corner-all')) {
// console.log('expand');
child.click();
}
}
PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",{id:"formSmash:responsibleOrgs",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_responsibleOrgs",multiple:true}); 2006 (English)In: Systematic Biology, ISSN 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online, Vol. 55, no 1, 116-121 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
##### Abstract [en]

##### Place, publisher, year, edition, pages

2006. Vol. 55, no 1, 116-121 p.
##### Keyword [en]

Bayesian inference, maximum likelihood method, Phylogeny, support
##### National Category

Probability Theory and Statistics
##### Identifiers

URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-22387DOI: doi:10.1080/10635150500481648OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-22387DiVA: diva2:50160
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt375",{id:"formSmash:j_idt375",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt375",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt381",{id:"formSmash:j_idt381",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt381",multiple:true});
#####

PrimeFaces.cw("AccordionPanel","widget_formSmash_j_idt387",{id:"formSmash:j_idt387",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_j_idt387",multiple:true});
Available from: 2007-01-17 Created: 2007-01-17 Last updated: 2011-01-11

Using a four-taxon example under a simple model of evolution, we show that the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability (which is a Bayesian method of inference) may not arrive at the same optimal tree topology. Some patterns that are separately uninformative under the maximum likelihood method are separately informative under the Bayesian method. We also show that this difference has impact on the bootstrap frequencies and the posterior probabilities of topologies, which therefore are not necessarily approximately equal. Efron et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:13429-13434, 1996) stated that bootstrap frequencies can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as posterior probabilities. This is true only if one includes a noninformative prior distribution of the possible data patterns, and most often the prior distributions are instead specified in terms of topology and branch lengths.

References$(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("TieredMenu","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1080",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1080",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1080",autoDisplay:true,overlay:true,my:"left top",at:"left bottom",trigger:"formSmash:lower:referencesLink",triggerEvent:"click"});}); $(function(){PrimeFaces.cw("OverlayPanel","widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1081_j_idt1083",{id:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1081:j_idt1083",widgetVar:"widget_formSmash_lower_j_idt1081_j_idt1083",target:"formSmash:lower:j_idt1081:permLink",showEffect:"blind",hideEffect:"fade",my:"right top",at:"right bottom",showCloseIcon:true});});