[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#415418: marked as done (components of phylip give wrong tree files)



Your message dated Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:14:24 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id <Pine.LNX.4.62.0703261011190.23136@wr-linux02>
and subject line Done: Bug#415418: components of phylip give wrong tree files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: phylip
Version: 3.6.1-2
iDear maintainer,
Various programs in the phylip package (proml, fitch) describe wrong
phylogenetic trees. The problem should be in the common parts which
outputs the "outtree" files. Since for example the distance matrix file 
produced by protdist is correct, but fitch -using this orrect matrix - 
describes the same nonsense tree like proml from the same alignment.
	Yours sincerely Peter Elo



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Joe Felsenstein wrote:

 5 18
p32kb4/94-   ASRQFFNYRR PPDGEEDVDY QAKNKWSLED VISYLQHIPK QVRKVILTSL
p32_rus/85   AARQYFNYRR PPDGEEDVDY NAKSKWNLED VISYLQHIPK QVRKVILTSL
OAV_p32/10   ARDQWYFPIR PSDGEHDTDV KVKKKWSLDT VLQFLQSSPK HIRQLLLTSL
EDS_p24k/1   APLYEEPIVK RSDGEADQDR AIKHKWNIDD VLDFLMKVPE RTRKVVLISL
snake_p32k   VAEGNYLPRR PADGEADRDN RVRNRWSLEQ VLRTLERIPA RGRKLILTGL

             FGATLGLIID ALLGGPWGLT TRLLRLIVSL VPGGKILLLA LDGLGYFLGK
             FGATLGLIID ALLGGPWGLT TRLLRLIVSL VPGGKILLLA LDGLGYFLGK
             FGSLLGLILD TLFGGPWNLT SRLLRLIISV VPGGRILLTA LDGLGYFLGN
             FGTAVGAVID LMLGSPLGLT SKIIRAILRI IPGGWIILNT FDGLGYLLGK
             FGTAVGVVLD LLLGSPLNLT TRLVRLIVGF VPGGNLILNA LDGLGYLMSR

             -NNNPNLVAY DPDLIKFGTN IQRNINGRLT EDIVRAAEEQ LGGGFMRTLA
             -SNNPNLVAY DPDLIKFGTD IQKNINGRLT EDIVRAAEEQ LGGGFMRTLA
             -SANPIHLIE NPMMQAFGNS IQKQISPRLA EDIIKAADEQ IGGGFMRTIA
             -GQEVLQITY DPGFVELAKR VQSSIPPHTA EEIAAAADRQ LGGNTFTASL
             FPSNPLQITY DPGFQRLANS VQQNIPQGTA EALAHAAEQQ VGEGFARNLA

             ALLSAAASAG THLKIALPAI PLAVIKPFQR
             ALLSAAASAG THLKIALPAI PLAVIKPFQR
             SILSAAASAG THFTMALPAI PIAAVRPFMR
             AALLHAVFLR D--R------ ----------
             AAMSYLVGSA P--SAAPMAI PLALVRPFRP

(p32_rus/85:0.02613,((snake_p32k:0.32827,EDS_p24k/1:0.70718):0.34711,
OAV_p32/10:0.33825):0.24907,p32kb4/94-:0.02121);


Looking at this "wierd" "wrong" "nonsense tree"  it looks fine to me.
Fitch and Proml output unrooted trees.  The program defaults to rooting
these on sequence number 1.  That does not change the topology or branch
lengths of the unrooted tree but can result in a startling tree if one
thinks of it a rooted tree.   If Peter were to choose a more reasonable
outgroup, or else just look only at the unrooted shape of the tree,
would he find anything wrong with it?  One way to root the tree is to
use the M (Midpoint rooting) option of Retree.

If he still finds a problem I can chase it, but at this stage I don't
think there is any.

If upstream says this is the intended behaviour I do not see a reason
to keep this bug open.  There was no further response from the original
bug reporter and thus either he is convinced and agrees with upstream
or he should reopen the bug with further information what he would like
upstream to change.

Kind regards

          Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

--- End Message ---

Reply to: