Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 69, Issue 5, pp 1709–1725 | Cite as

Unique Determination of Some Homoplasies at Hybridization Events

  • Stephen J. WillsonEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships may be represented by rooted acyclic directed graphs in which each vertex, corresponding to a taxon, possesses a genome. Assume the characters are all binary. A homoplasy occurs if a particular character changes its state more than once in the graph. A vertex is “regular” if it has only one parent and “hybrid” if it has more than one parent. A “regular path” is a directed path such that all vertices after the first are regular. Assume that the network is given and that the genomes are known for all leaves and for the root. Assume that all homoplasies occur only at hybrid vertices and each character has at most one homoplasy. Assume that from each vertex there is a regular path leading to a leaf. In this idealized setting, with other mild assumptions, it is proved that the genome at each vertex is uniquely determined. Hence, for each character the vertex at which a homoplasy occurs in the character is uniquely determined. Without the assumption on regular paths, an example shows that the genomes and homoplasies need not be uniquely determined.

Keywords

Phylogeny Network Phylogenetic network Hybridization Homoplasy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandelt, H.-J., Dress, A., 1986. Reconstructing the shape of a tree from observed dissimilarity data. Adv. Appl. Math. 7, 309–343.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandelt, H.-J., Dress, A., 1992. Split decomposition: A new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baroni, M., Semple, C., Steel, M., 2004. A framework for representing reticulate evolution. Ann. Comb. 8, 391–408.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Camin, J.H., Sokal, R.R., 1965. A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. Evolution 19, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felsenstein, J., 2006. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Dan Gusfield, Gusfield, D., 1991. Efficient algorithms for inferring evolutionary history. Networks 21, 19–28.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Dan Gusfield, Satish Eddhu, and Charles Langley, Gusfield, D., Eddhu, S., Langley, C., 2004a. Optimal, efficient reconstruction of phylogenetic networks with constrained recombination. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 2, 173–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dan Gusfield, Satish Eddhu, and Charles Langley, Gusfield, D., Eddhu, S., Langley, C., 2004b. The fine structure of galls in phylogenetic networks. INFORMS J. Comput. 16, 459–469. Special Issue on Computational Molecular Biology. Bioinformatics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hein, J., 1990. Reconstructing evolution of sequences subject to recombination using parsimony. Math. Biosci. 98, 185–200.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Hein, J., 1993. A heuristic method to reconstruct the history of sequences subject to recombination. J. Mol. Evol. 36, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huber, K.T., Moulton, V., 2006. Phylogenetic networks from multi-labelled trees. J. Math. Biol. 52, 613–632.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Huber, K.T., Oxelman, B., Lott, M., Moulton, V., 2006. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of polyploids from multilabeled trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 1784–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moret, B.M.E., Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Linder, C.R., Tholse, A., Padolina, A., Sun, J., Timme, R., 2004. Phylogenetic networks: Modeling, reconstructibility, and accuracy. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 1, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Linder, C.R., 2004. Reconstructing reticulate evolution in species—theory and practice. In: Bourne, P.E., Gusfield, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology (RECOMB ′04, March 27–31, 2004, San Diego, California), ACM, New York, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
  15. Semple, C., Steel, M., 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang, L., Zhang, K., Zhang, L., 2001. Perfect phylogenetic networks with recombination. J. Comput. Biol. 8, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Willson, S.J., 2006a. Unique solvability of certain hybrid networks from their distances. Ann. Combin. 10, 165–178.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Willson, S.J., 2006b. Unique reconstruction of tree-like phylogenetic networks from distances between leaves. Bull. Math. Biol. 68, 919–944.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, IowaState UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations