Re: [R-sig-phylo] Ancestral Reconstruction Giving Identical Values

2012-11-09 Thread Luke Harmon
I would have to see your code to know 100% for certain - but your results make 
intuitive sense, so let me just guess. When you have OU under a very high alpha 
(which is what you are getting here), then you are modeling a process following 
a random walk with an extremely high tendency to be pulled towards the OU 
optimum value. In this case, characters do not retain any information about 
their past states, and so the best guess for every node in the tree is the 
mean of all of the characters. You can check to see if the value you are 
getting back is actually the mean of all of your tips.

To me, what this means is that if you think the model is correct (lambda or OU) 
then you have no information about any of the ancestral character states in the 
tree.

lh

On Nov 8, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Zachary Chejanovski sliv...@life.bio.sunysb.edu 
wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I am attempting to estimate ancestral states using the following methods-
 APE::ace, GEIGER::getancstates, as well as this method recommend by Liam 
 Revell for reconstructing under an OU model:
 
 ou-fitContinuous(tree,data,model=OU)$Trait1 
 anc.mins-vector()
 N-length(tree$tip)
 M-tree$Nnode
 outree-ouTree(tree,ou$alpha)
 for(i in 1:M+N){
   
 anc.mins[i-N]-ace(data,multi2di(root(outree,node=i)),method=pic)$ace[1]
   names(anc.mins)[i-N]-i
 }
 Here are the parameter estimates for one of my traits:
 $Lambda
lnl betalambda  aic aicc k
 1 -121.4771 31.33674 0.4057359 248.9541 250.2173 3
 $OU
lnl beta  alpha convergence
  message k  aic aicc
 1 -120.7098 281.9509 0.08288029   0 CONVERGENCE: REL_REDUCTION_OF_F 
 = FACTR*EPSMCH 3 247.4196 248.6828
 
 When I do not transform the tree (i.e. Brownian Motion), the values returned 
 seem valid. But when I transform the tree using either lambdaTree, ouTree. or 
 even the exponentialTree, all the values returned are almost identical and 
 when I plot them on the phylogeny, it is evident that they do not make sense 
 in regards to the tip values.
 
 Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
 Thank you,
 Zac
   [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
 
 ___
 R-sig-phylo mailing list
 R-sig-phylo@r-project.org
 https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo

Luke Harmon
Associate Professor
Biological Sciences
University of Idaho
208-885-0346
lu...@uidaho.edu

___
R-sig-phylo mailing list
R-sig-phylo@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo


[R-sig-phylo] Ancestral Reconstruction Giving Identical Values

2012-11-08 Thread Zachary Chejanovski
Hi,

I am attempting to estimate ancestral states using the following methods-
APE::ace, GEIGER::getancstates, as well as this method recommend by Liam Revell 
for reconstructing under an OU model:

ou-fitContinuous(tree,data,model=OU)$Trait1 
anc.mins-vector()
N-length(tree$tip)
M-tree$Nnode
outree-ouTree(tree,ou$alpha)
for(i in 1:M+N){

anc.mins[i-N]-ace(data,multi2di(root(outree,node=i)),method=pic)$ace[1]
names(anc.mins)[i-N]-i
}
Here are the parameter estimates for one of my traits:
$Lambda
lnl betalambda  aic aicc k
1 -121.4771 31.33674 0.4057359 248.9541 250.2173 3
$OU
lnl beta  alpha convergence 
message k  aic aicc
1 -120.7098 281.9509 0.08288029   0 CONVERGENCE: REL_REDUCTION_OF_F = 
FACTR*EPSMCH 3 247.4196 248.6828

When I do not transform the tree (i.e. Brownian Motion), the values returned 
seem valid. But when I transform the tree using either lambdaTree, ouTree. or 
even the exponentialTree, all the values returned are almost identical and when 
I plot them on the phylogeny, it is evident that they do not make sense in 
regards to the tip values.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Zac
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

___
R-sig-phylo mailing list
R-sig-phylo@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo