Advertisement

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 864–879 | Cite as

On the Accuracy of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction for Ultrametric Trees with Parsimony

Original Article

Abstract

We examine a mathematical question concerning the reconstruction accuracy of the Fitch algorithm for reconstructing the ancestral sequence of the most recent common ancestor given a phylogenetic tree and sequence data for all taxa under consideration. In particular, for the symmetric four-state substitution model which is also known as Jukes–Cantor model, we answer affirmatively a conjecture of Li, Steel and Zhang which states that for any ultrametric phylogenetic tree and a symmetric model, the Fitch parsimony method using all terminal taxa is more accurate, or at least as accurate, for ancestral state reconstruction than using any particular terminal taxon or any particular pair of taxa. This conjecture had so far only been answered for two-state data by Fischer and Thatte. Here, we focus on answering the biologically more relevant case with four states, which corresponds to ancestral sequence reconstruction from DNA or RNA data.

Keywords

Maximum parsimony Ancestral sequence reconstruction Reconstruction accuracy Symmetric four-state model 

References

  1. Fischer M, Thatte BD (2009) Maximum parsimony on subsets of taxa. J Theor Biol 260(2):290–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.06.010 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fitch WM (1971) Toward defining the course of evolution: Minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst Zool 2(4):406–416.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2412116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jukes T, Cantor C (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. Mamm Protein Metab 3:21–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16(2):111–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Li G, Steel M, Zhang L (2008) More taxa are not necessarily better for the reconstruction of ancestral character states. Syst Biol 57(4):647–653.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802203898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Liberles (ed) DA (2007) Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction. Oxford University Press, NY.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299188.001.0001
  7. Regner P (2012) Phylogenetic trees-selected combinatorial problems. Diplomarbeit, Technical University of Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  8. Salisbury BA, Kim J (2001) Ancestral state estimation and taxon sampling density. Syst Biol 50(4):557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501750435103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its ApplicationGoogle Scholar
  10. Tuffley C, Steel M (1997) Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull Math Biol 59(3):581–607.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459467 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Yang J, Li J, Dong L, Grünewald S (2011) Analysis on the reconstruction accuracy of the fitch method for inferring ancestral states. BMC Bioinform 12(18).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-18
  12. Zhang L, Shen J, Yang J, Li G (2010) Analyzing the fitch method for reconstructing ancestral states on ultrametric phylogenetic trees. Bull Math Biol 72:1760–1782.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-010-9505-8 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Mathematics and Computer ScienceGreifswald UniversityGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations