Erixon Per, Svennblad Bodil, Britton Tom, Oxelman Bengt
Department of Systematic Botany, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyv. 18D, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden.
Syst Biol. 2003 Oct;52(5):665-73. doi: 10.1080/10635150390235485.
Many empirical studies have revealed considerable differences between nonparametric bootstrapping and Bayesian posterior probabilities in terms of the support values for branches, despite claimed predictions about their approximate equivalence. We investigated this problem by simulating data, which were then analyzed by maximum likelihood bootstrapping and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using identical models and reoptimization of parameter values. We show that Bayesian posterior probabilities are significantly higher than corresponding nonparametric bootstrap frequencies for true clades, but also that erroneous conclusions will be made more often. These errors are strongly accentuated when the models used for analyses are underparameterized. When data are analyzed under the correct model, nonparametric bootstrapping is conservative. Bayesian posterior probabilities are also conservative in this respect, but less so.
许多实证研究表明，尽管有人声称非参数自展法和贝叶斯后验概率在分支支持值方面大致等效，但它们之间仍存在显著差异。我们通过模拟数据来研究这个问题，然后使用相同的模型和参数值重新优化，通过最大似然自展法和贝叶斯系统发育分析对数据进行分析。我们表明，对于真实的分支，贝叶斯后验概率显著高于相应的非参数自展频率，但错误结论也会更频繁地出现。当用于分析的模型参数不足时，这些错误会被大大加剧。当在正确的模型下分析数据时，非参数自展法是保守的。贝叶斯后验概率在这方面也是保守的，但程度较轻。
