# Trinets encode tree-child and level-2 phylogenetic networks

- 213 Downloads
- 1 Citations

## Abstract

Phylogenetic networks generalize evolutionary trees, and are commonly used to represent evolutionary histories of species that undergo reticulate evolutionary processes such as hybridization, recombination and lateral gene transfer. Recently, there has been great interest in trying to develop methods to construct rooted phylogenetic networks from *triplets*, that is rooted trees on three species. However, although triplets determine or *encode* rooted phylogenetic trees, they do not in general encode rooted phylogenetic networks, which is a potential issue for any such method. Motivated by this fact, Huber and Moulton recently introduced *trinets* as a natural extension of rooted triplets to networks. In particular, they showed that \(\text{ level-1 }\) phylogenetic networks *are* encoded by their trinets, and also conjectured that all “recoverable” rooted phylogenetic networks are encoded by their trinets. Here we prove that recoverable binary level-2 networks and binary tree-child networks are also encoded by their trinets. To do this we prove two decomposition theorems based on trinets which hold for *all* recoverable binary rooted phylogenetic networks. Our results provide some additional evidence in support of the conjecture that trinets encode all recoverable rooted phylogenetic networks, and could also lead to new approaches to construct phylogenetic networks from trinets.

## Keywords

Phylogenetic network Directed graph Reticulate evolution Uniqueness Encoding Trinet## Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

68R05 05C20 92D15## Notes

### Acknowledgments

Leo van Iersel was supported by a Veni grant of The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

## References

- Aho AV, Sagiv Y, Szymanski TG, Ullman JD (1981) Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J Comput 100(3):405–421 ISSN 0097–5397CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Baroni M, Semple C, Steel M (2004) A framework for representing reticulate evolution. Ann Comb 8: 391–408Google Scholar
- Byrka J, Guillemot S, Jansson J (2010) New results on optimizing rooted triplets consistency. Discrete Appl Math 158:1136–1147CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2008) A distance metric for a class of tree-sibling phylogenetic networks. Bioinformatics 24:1481–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2009a) Metrics for phylogenetic networks I: generalization of the robinson-foulds metric. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2009b) Metrics for phylogenetic networks II: nodal and triplets metrics. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6:454–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cardona G, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2009c) Comparison of tree-child phylogenetic networks. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6(4):552–569Google Scholar
- Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2010) Path lengths in tree-child time consistent hybridization networks. Inform Sci 180(3):366–383CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2011) Comparison of galled trees. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 8:410–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dress A, Huber KT, Koolen J, Moulton V, Spillner A (2012) Basic phylogenetic combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
- Fischer J, Huson D (2010) New common ancestor problems in trees and directed acyclic graphs. Inf Process Lett 110:331–335CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Gambette P, Huber KT (2009) A note on encodings of phylogenetic networks of bounded level. Technical, Report. arXiv:0906.4324Google Scholar
- Gambette P, Huber KT (2012) On encodings of phylogenetic networks of bounded level. J Mol Biol 65(1):157–180MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Gambette P, Berry V, Paul C (2009) The structure of level-k phylogenetic networks. Proc Comb Pattern Matching 5577:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gambette P, Berry V, Paul C (2012) Quartets and unrooted phylogenetic networks. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 10(4):1250004Google Scholar
- Habib M, To T-H (2012) Constructing a minimum phylogenetic network from a dense triplet set. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 10(5):1250010. doi: 10.1142/s0219720012500138 Google Scholar
- Huber KT, Moulton V (2013) Encoding and constructing 1-nested phylogenetic networks with trinets. Algorithmica 66(3):714–738Google Scholar
- Huber KT, van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM, Suchecki R (2011) A practical algorithm for reconstructing level-1 phylogenetic networks. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 8(3):635–649Google Scholar
- Huson DH, Rupp R, Scornavacca C (2011) Phylogenetic networks: concepts, algorithms and applications. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Jansson J, Nguyen NB, Sung W-K (2006) Algorithms for combining rooted triplets into a galled phylogenetic network. SIAM J Comput 35(5):1098–1121CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Jin G, Nakhleh L, Snir S, Tuller T (2006) Maximum likelihood of phylogenetic networks. Bioinformatics 22:2604–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jin G, Nakhleh L, Snir S, Tuller T (2009) Parsimony score of phylogenetic networks: hardness results and a linear-time heuristic. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morrison D (2011) Introduction to phylogenetic networks. RJR Productions, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
- Nakhleh L (2011) Evolutionary phylogenetic networks: Models and issues. In: Heath LS, Ramakrishnan N (eds) Problem solving handbook in computational biology and bioinformatics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Ranwez V, Berry V, Criscuolo A, Fabre P-H, Guillemot S, Scornavacca C, Douzery EJP (2007) PhySIC: a veto supertree method with desirable properties. Syst Biol 56(5):798–817Google Scholar
- Scornavacca C, Berry V, Lefort V, Douzery E, Ranwez V (2008) \(\text{ PhySIC }\_\text{ IST }\): cleaning source trees to infer more informative supertrees. BMC Bioinforma 9(1):413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN: 0-19-850942-1Google Scholar
- van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM (2011a) Constructing the simplest possible phylogenetic network from triplets. Algorithmica 60(2):207–235CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM (2011b) When two trees go to war. J Theor Biol 269(1):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van Iersel LJJ, Keijsper JCM, Kelk SM, Stougie L, Hagen F, Boekhout T (2009a) Constructing level-2 phylogenetic networks from triplets. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6(4):667–681Google Scholar
- van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM, Mnich M (2009b) Uniqueness, intractability and exact algorithms: reflections on level-\(k\) phylogenetic networks. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 7(2):597–623Google Scholar
- van Iersel LJJ, Semple C, Steel M (2010) Locating a tree in a phylogenetic network. Inf Process Lett 110(23):1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Willson SJ (2010) Regular networks can be uniquely constructed from their trees. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 8(3):785–796Google Scholar
- Willson SJ (2012) Tree-average distances on certain phylogenetic networks have their weights uniquely determined. Algorithm Mol Biol 7(13)Google Scholar