Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 84, Issue 2–3, pp 129–138 | Cite as

A Consensus Method for Ancestral Recombination Graphs

Original Article


We propose a consensus method for ancestral recombination graphs (ARGs) that generates a single ARG representing commonalities among a cloud of ARGs defined for the same genomic region and set of taxa. Our method, which we call “threshold consensus,” treats a genomic location as a potential recombination breakpoint only if the number of ARGs in the cloud possessing a breakpoint at that location exceeds a chosen threshold. The estimate is further refined by ignoring recombinations that do not change the local tree topologies, as well as collapsing breakpoint locations separated only by invariant sites. We test the threshold consensus algorithm, using a range of threshold values, on simulated ARGs inferred by a genealogy sampling algorithm, and evaluate accuracy of breakpoints and local topologies in the resulting consensus ARGs.

Supplementary material

239_2017_9786_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (79 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 0 KB)


  1. Buneman P (1971) The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In: Hodson F, Kensall D, Tautu P (eds) Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 387–395Google Scholar
  2. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Felsenstein J (2005) PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package) version 3.6. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  5. Griffiths R, Marjoram P (1997) An ancestral recombination graph. In: Donnelly P, Tavare S (eds) Progress in Population Genetics and Human Evolution, IMA Proceedings, Springer, New York, vol 87, pp 257–270Google Scholar
  6. Hillis DM, Bull JJ (1993) An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 42:182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hudson RR (2002) Generating samples under a Wright–Fisher neutral model of genetic variation. Bioinformatics 18:337–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17:754–755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhner MK (2006) LAMARC 2.0: maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimation of population parameters. Bioinformatics 22:768–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuhner MK, Yamato J (2015a) Assessing differences between ancestral recombination graphs. J Mol Evol 80:258–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuhner MK, Yamato J (2015b) Data from: assessing differences between ancestral recombination graphs. Dryad Digit Repos. doi:10.5061/dryad.r4g3g
  12. Lapointe FJ, Cucumel G (2003) How good can a consensus get? Assessing the reliability of consensus trees in phylogenetic studies. DIMACS Ser Discret Math Theor Comput Sci 61:205–220Google Scholar
  13. Margush T, McMorris FR (1981) Consensus n-trees. Bull Math Biol 43:239–244Google Scholar
  14. Penny D, Foulds LR, Hendy MD (1982) Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297:197–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rambaut A, Grassly NC (1997) Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of dna sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput Appl Biosci 13:235–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Robinson DF, Foulds LR (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci 53:131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swofford DL (1991) When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In: Miyamoto M, Cracraft J (eds) Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 295–333Google Scholar
  18. Wang Y, Rannala B (2008) Bayesian inference of fine-scale recombination rates using population genomic data. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:3921–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang Y, Rannala B (2009) Population genomic inference of recombination rates and hotspots. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:6210–6214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Genome SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations