Advertisement

Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 68, Issue 7, pp 1707–1729 | Cite as

Trinets encode tree-child and level-2 phylogenetic networks

  • Leo van Iersel
  • Vincent Moulton
Article

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

  1. 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
  2. Baroni M, Semple C, Steel M (2004) A framework for representing reticulate evolution. Ann Comb 8: 391–408Google Scholar
  3. Byrka J, Guillemot S, Jansson J (2010) New results on optimizing rooted triplets consistency. Discrete Appl Math 158:1136–1147CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Cardona G, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2009c) Comparison of tree-child phylogenetic networks. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 6(4):552–569Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G (2011) Comparison of galled trees. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 8:410–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dress A, Huber KT, Koolen J, Moulton V, Spillner A (2012) Basic phylogenetic combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer J, Huson D (2010) New common ancestor problems in trees and directed acyclic graphs. Inf Process Lett 110:331–335CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Gambette P, Huber KT (2009) A note on encodings of phylogenetic networks of bounded level. Technical, Report. arXiv:0906.4324Google Scholar
  13. Gambette P, Huber KT (2012) On encodings of phylogenetic networks of bounded level. J Mol Biol 65(1):157–180MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Gambette P, Berry V, Paul C (2009) The structure of level-k phylogenetic networks. Proc Comb Pattern Matching 5577:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gambette P, Berry V, Paul C (2012) Quartets and unrooted phylogenetic networks. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 10(4):1250004Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Huber KT, Moulton V (2013) Encoding and constructing 1-nested phylogenetic networks with trinets. Algorithmica 66(3):714–738Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Huson DH, Rupp R, Scornavacca C (2011) Phylogenetic networks: concepts, algorithms and applications. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Jin G, Nakhleh L, Snir S, Tuller T (2006) Maximum likelihood of phylogenetic networks. Bioinformatics 22:2604–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Morrison D (2011) Introduction to phylogenetic networks. RJR Productions, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN: 0-19-850942-1Google Scholar
  28. van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM (2011a) Constructing the simplest possible phylogenetic network from triplets. Algorithmica 60(2):207–235CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. van Iersel LJJ, Kelk SM (2011b) When two trees go to war. J Theor Biol 269(1):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. van Iersel LJJ, Semple C, Steel M (2010) Locating a tree in a phylogenetic network. Inf Process Lett 110(23):1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Willson SJ (2010) Regular networks can be uniquely constructed from their trees. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 8(3):785–796Google Scholar
  34. Willson SJ (2012) Tree-average distances on certain phylogenetic networks have their weights uniquely determined. Algorithm Mol Biol 7(13)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Computing SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations