Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 253–276 | Cite as

Nodal distances for rooted phylogenetic trees

  • Gabriel Cardona
  • Mercè Llabrés
  • Francesc Rosselló
  • Gabriel Valiente
Article

Abstract

Dissimilarity measures for (possibly weighted) phylogenetic trees based on the comparison of their vectors of path lengths between pairs of taxa, have been present in the systematics literature since the early seventies. For rooted phylogenetic trees, however, these vectors can only separate non-weighted binary trees, and therefore these dissimilarity measures are metrics only on this class of rooted phylogenetic trees. In this paper we overcome this problem, by splitting in a suitable way each path length between two taxa into two lengths. We prove that the resulting splitted path lengths matrices single out arbitrary rooted phylogenetic trees with nested taxa and arcs weighted in the set of positive real numbers. This allows the definition of metrics on this general class of rooted phylogenetic trees by comparing these matrices through metrics in spaces \({\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb {R})}\) of real-valued n × n matrices. We conclude this paper by establishing some basic facts about the metrics for non-weighted phylogenetic trees defined in this way using L p metrics on \({\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb {R})}\), with \({p \in \mathbb {R}_{ >0 }}\).

Keywords

Phylogenetic tree Weighted tree Nested taxa Path lengths Nodal metric 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

92B10 92D15 05C05 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdi H (1990) Additive-tree representations. In: Trees and hierarchical structures. Lecture notes in biomathematics, vol 84. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 43–59Google Scholar
  2. Allen BL, Steel MA (2001) Subtree transfer operations and their induced metrics on evolutionary trees. Ann Comb 5: 1–13CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Batagelj V, Pisanski T, Simões-Pereira JMS (1990) An algorithm for tree-realizability of distance matrices. Int J Comput Math 34(3): 171–176MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batra P (2008) Newton’s method and the computational complexity of the fundamental theorem of algebra. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 202: 201–218CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Billera LJ, Holmes SP, Vogtmann K (2001) Geometry of the space of phylogenetic trees. Adv Appl Math 27(1): 733–767MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Bluis J, Shin D-G (2003) Nodal distance algorithm: calculating a phylogenetic tree comparison metric. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE symposium on bioInformatics and bioEngineering, IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  7. Boesch FT (1968) of the distance matrix of a tree. Q Appl Math 16: 607–609MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Buneman P (1969) The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In: Hodson FR, Kendall DG, Tautu P (eds) Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburgh University Press, pp 387–395Google Scholar
  9. Critchlow DE, Pearl DK, Qian C (1996) The triples distance for rooted bifurcating phylogenetic trees. Syst Biol 45(3): 323–334Google Scholar
  10. Farris JS (1969) A successive approximations approach to character weighting. Syst Zool 18: 374–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farris JS (1973) On comparing the shapes of taxonomic trees. Syst Zool 22: 50–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felsenstein J (1978) The number of evolutionary trees. Syst Zool 27: 27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Grünewald S, Huber KT, Moulton V, Semple C (2008) Encoding phylogenetic trees in terms of weighted quartets. J Math Biol 56(4): 465–477MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Handl J, Knowles J, Kell DB (2005) Computational cluster validation in post-genomic data analysis. Bioinformatics 21(15): 3201–3212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoef-Emden K (2005) Molecular phylogenetic analyses and real-life data. Comput Sci Eng 7(3): 86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leonardi F, Matioli SR, Armelin HA, Galves A (2008) Detecting phylogenetic relations out from sparse context trees, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4279
  18. Morell V (1996) TreeBASE: the roots of phylogeny. Science 273(5275):569–570. http://www.treebase.org Google Scholar
  19. Oden NL, Shao K (1984) An algorithm to equiprobably generate all directed trees with k labeled terminal nodes and unlabeled interior nodes. Bull Math Biol 46: 379–387MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Page RDM (2005) Phyloinformatics: toward a phylogenetic database. In: Wang JT-L, Zaki MJ, Toivonen H, Shasha D (eds) Data mining in bioinformatics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Penny D, Hendy MD (1985) The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst Zool 34(1): 75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phipps JB (1971) Dendrogram topology. Syst Zool 20: 306–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Puigbò P, Garcia-Vallvé S, McInerney J (2007) TOPD/FMTS: a new software to compare phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 23(12): 1556–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson DF, Foulds LR (1979) Comparison of weighted labelled trees. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australian conference on combinatorial mathematics. Lecture notes in mathematics, vol 748. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 119–126Google Scholar
  25. Robinson DF, Foulds LR (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci 53(1/2): 131–147MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Simões-Pereira JMS (1969) A note on the tree realizability of a distance. J Comb Theor B 6(3): 303–310MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sloane NJA The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences. http://www.research.att.com/njas/sequences/
  29. Smolenskii YA (1963) A method for the linear recording of graphs. USSR Comput Math Math Phys 2: 396–397CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Steel MA, Penny D (1993) Distributions of tree comparison metrics—some new results. Syst Biol 42(2): 126–141MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Waterman MS, Smith TF (1978) On the similarity of dendograms. J Theor Biol 73: 789–800CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams WT, Clifford HT (1971) On the comparison of two classifications of the same set of elements. Taxon 20(4): 519–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zaretskii KA (1965) Construction of a tree from the collection of distances between suspending vertices (in Russian). Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauka 6: 90–92Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Cardona
    • 1
  • Mercè Llabrés
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francesc Rosselló
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gabriel Valiente
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of the Balearic IslandsPalma de MallorcaSpain
  2. 2.Research Institute of Health Science (IUNICS)Palma de MallorcaSpain
  3. 3.Algorithms, Bioinformatics, Complexity and Formal Methods Research GroupTechnical University of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations