Although recent studies indicate that estimating phylogenies from alignments of concatenated genes greatly reduces the stochastic error, the potential for systematic error still remains, heightening the need for reliable methods to analyze multigene data sets. Consensus methods provide an alternative, more inclusive, approach for analyzing collections of trees arising from multiple genes. We extend a previously described consensus network method for genome-scale phylogeny (Holland, B. R., K. T. Huber, V. Moulton, and P. J. Lockhart. 2004. Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21:1459-1461) to incorporate additional information. This additional information could come from bootstrap analysis, Bayesian analysis, or various methods to find confidence sets of trees. The new methods can be extended to include edge weights representing genetic distance. We use three data sets to illustrate the approach: 61 genes from 14 angiosperm taxa and one gymnosperm, 106 genes from eight yeast taxa, and 46 members of a gene family from 15 vertebrate taxa.
|Evidence ID||Analyze ID||Interactor||Interactor Systematic Name||Interactor||Interactor Systematic Name||Type||Assay||Annotation||Action||Modification||Phenotype||Source||Reference||Note|
|Evidence ID||Analyze ID||Gene||Gene Systematic Name||Gene Ontology Term||Gene Ontology Term ID||Qualifier||Aspect||Method||Evidence||Source||Assigned On||Reference||Annotation Extension|
|Evidence ID||Analyze ID||Gene||Gene Systematic Name||Phenotype||Experiment Type||Experiment Type Category||Mutant Information||Strain Background||Chemical||Details||Reference|
|Evidence ID||Analyze ID||Regulator||Regulator Systematic Name||Target||Target Systematic Name||Experiment||Conditions||Strain||Source||Reference|