Lake Mungo 3: A response to recent critiques
Lake Mungo 3: A response to recent critiques
复制标题
Lake Mungo 3：对最近批评的回应
DOI：
10.1002/j.1834-4453.2001.tb00494.x
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
A. Thorne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Adcock;E. Dennis;S. Easteal;G. Huttley;L. Jermiin;W. Peacock;A. Thorne
CERN可以总结为三个问题：（/）序列数据正确吗？(ii)系统发育的方法是否合适？（3）结论是否成立？最近，我们在回复（Adcock et al 2001 b）库珀等人（2001）的一封信时，讨论了Trueman、Colgan和格罗夫斯提出的一些问题。这一答复再次肯定了用于获取古代DNA的方法的稳健性，并认为这些方法符合此类工作的预期标准。库珀等人（2001年）推断了另一种同源性，类似于特鲁曼构建的同源性，该同源性将LM 3和插入序列一起分组在包含现代人类线粒体DNA最近共同祖先的进化枝内。为了响应库珀等人。（2001）的关注，并在下面进一步证实，我们相信，我们的分析达到了最好地描述数据的树。我们保持了我们在原始论文中概述的谨慎方法来解释数据。通过对其他个体的序列数据进行额外的采样，并纳入已分析的较长序列，当然，数据中的变异可能会被另一个同源性更好地描述。然而，目前，我们认为，这是不可能的，真正的树拓扑结构将从根本上不同于一个建议。下面我们将讨论Trueman、Colgan和格罗夫斯提出的问题，这些问题在我们早期的论文中还没有得到明确的回答（Adcock et al 2001 a，2001 b）。
cerns can be summarized by three questions: (/) are the sequence data correct? (ii) are the phylogenetic methods appropriate? and (Hi) are the conclusions valid? We recently addressed some of the issues raised by Trueman, Colgan, and Groves in a response (Adcock et al 2001b) to a letter by Cooper et al (2001). This response reaffirmed the robustness of the methods used for obtaining ancient DNA and argued that these methods were of the standard expected for such work. Cooper et al (2001) inferred an alternative phylogeny, similar to the one constructed by Trueman, which grouped LM3 and the Insert sequence together within the clade containing the most recent common ancestor of modern human mitochondrial DNA. In response to Cooper et o/.'s (2001) concern, and further substantiated below, we believe that our analysis arrives at the tree that best describes the data. We maintained the cautious approach to the interpretation of the data that we outlined in the original paper. With the additional sampling of sequence data from other individuals and the inclusion of longer sequences from those already analysed, it is, of course, possible that variation in the data will be better described by another phylogeny. At present, however, we argue that it is unlikely that the true tree topology will be radically different from the one proposed. Below we address those concerns raised by Trueman, Colgan, and Groves, which have not already been explicitly answered in our earlier papers (Adcock et al 2001a, 2001b).