Advertisement

Probability Theory and Related Fields

, Volume 149, Issue 1–2, pp 149–189 | Cite as

Evolutionary trees and the Ising model on the Bethe lattice: a proof of Steel’s conjecture

  • Constantinos Daskalakis
  • Elchanan Mossel
  • Sébastien Roch
Open Access
Article

Abstract

A major task of evolutionary biology is the reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from molecular data. The evolutionary model is given by a Markov chain on a tree. Given samples from the leaves of the Markov chain, the goal is to reconstruct the leaf-labelled tree. It is well known that in order to reconstruct a tree on n leaves, sample sequences of length Ω(log n) are needed. It was conjectured by Steel that for the CFN/Ising evolutionary model, if the mutation probability on all edges of the tree is less than \({p^{\ast} = (\sqrt{2}-1)/2^{3/2}}\), then the tree can be recovered from sequences of length O(log n). The value p* is given by the transition point for the extremality of the free Gibbs measure for the Ising model on the binary tree. Steel’s conjecture was proven by the second author in the special case where the tree is “balanced.” The second author also proved that if all edges have mutation probability larger than p* then the length needed is n Ω(1). Here we show that Steel’s conjecture holds true for general trees by giving a reconstruction algorithm that recovers the tree from O(log n)-length sequences when the mutation probabilities are discretized and less than p*. Our proof and results demonstrate that extremality of the free Gibbs measure on the infinite binary tree, which has been studied before in probability, statistical physics and computer science, determines how distinguishable are Gibbs measures on finite binary trees.

Keywords

Phylogenetics CFN model Ising model Phase transitions Reconstruction problem Jukes–Cantor 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Primary 60K35 92D15 Secondary 60J85 82B26 

Notes

Acknowledgments

S.R. thanks Martin Nowak and the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University where part of this work was done. E.M. and S.R. thank Mike Steel for his enthusiastic encouragement for studying the connections between the reconstruction problem and phylogenetics. We thank Satish Rao and Allan Sly for interesting discussions. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful comments. C.D. and S.R. performed this work at UC Berkeley and Microsoft Research.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    Borgs, C., Chayes, J.T., Mossel, E., Roch, S.: The Kesten–Stigum reconstruction bound is tight for roughly symmetric binary channels. In: FOCS, pp. 518–530 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, N., Kenyon, C., Mossel, E., Peres, Y.: Glauber dynamics on trees and hyperbolic graphs. Probab. Theory Rel. 131(3), 311–340 (2005). In: Kenyon, C., Mossel, E., Peres, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 568–578 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleher P.M., Ruiz J., Zagrebnov V.A.: On the purity of the limiting Gibbs state for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice. J. Stat. Phys. 79(1–2), 473–482 (1995)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buneman, P.: The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In: Mathematics in the Archaelogical and Historical Sciences, pp. 187–395. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1971)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cavender, J.A.: Taxonomy with confidence. Math. Biosci. 40(3–4) (1978)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang J.T.: Full reconstruction of Markov models on evolutionary trees: identifiability and consistency. Math. Biosci. 137(1), 51–73 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daskalakis, C., Mossel, E., Roch, S.: Optimal phylogenetic reconstruction. In: STOC’06: Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 159–168. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans W.S., Kenyon C., Peres Y., Schulman L.J.: Broadcasting on trees and the Ising model. Ann. Appl. Probab. 10(2), 410–433 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erdös P.L., Steel M.A., Székely L.A., Warnow T.A.: A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (part 1). Random Struct. Algor. 14(2), 153–184 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farris J.S.: A probability model for inferring evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 22(4), 250–256 (1973)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felsenstein J.: Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Georgii H.O.: Gibbs measures and phase transitions, volume 9 of de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Higuchi Y.: Remarks on the limiting Gibbs states on a (d + 1)-tree. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 13(2), 335–348 (1977)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ioffe D.: On the extremality of the disordered state for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice. Lett. Math. Phys. 37(2), 137–143 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jukes T.H., Cantor C.: Mammalian protein metabolism. In: Munro, H.N. (eds) Evolution of Protein Molecules, pp. 21–132. Academic, London (1969)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janson S., Mossel E.: Robust reconstruction on trees is determined by the second eigenvalue. Ann. Probab. 32, 2630–2649 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kesten H., Stigum B.P.: Additional limit theorems for indecomposable multidimensional Galton-Watson processes. Ann. Math. Stat. 37, 1463–1481 (1966)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lyons R.: The Ising model and percolation on trees and tree-like graphs. Comm. Math. Phys. 125(2), 337–353 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mézard M., Montanari A.: Reconstruction on trees and spin glass transition. J. Stat. Phys. 124(6), 1317–1350 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mossel E.: Recursive reconstruction on periodic trees. Random Struct. Algor. 13(1), 81–97 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mossel E.: Reconstruction on trees: beating the second eigenvalue. Ann. Appl. Probab. 11(1), 285–300 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mossel E.: Phase transitions in phylogeny. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356(6), 2379–2404 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mossel E.: Distorted metrics on trees and phylogenetic forests. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Bio. Bioinform. 4(1), 108–116 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mossel E., Peres Y.: Information flow on trees. Ann. Appl. Probab. 13(3), 817–844 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mossel E., Steel M.: A phase transition for a random cluster model on phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 187(2), 189–203 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martinelli, F., Sinclair, A., Weitz, D.: Fast mixing for independent sets, colorings, and other models on trees. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 449–458, 2004Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martinelli F., Sinclair A., Weitz D.: Glauber dynamics on trees: boundary conditions and mixing time. Comm. Math. Phys. 250(2), 301–334 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neyman J.: Molecular studies of evolution: a source of novel statistical problems. In: Gupta, S.S., Yackel, J. (eds) Statistical Desicion Theory and Related Topics, pp. 1–27. Academic Press, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roch, S.: Sequence-length requirement for distance-based phylogeny reconstruction: breaking the polynomial barrier. In: FOCS, pp. 729–738 (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roch, S.: Phase transition in distance-based phylogeny reconstruction. Preprint (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sly, A.: Reconstruction of symmetric Potts models. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.1208 (2008)
  32. 32.
    Spitzer F.: Markov random fields on an infinite tree. Ann. Probab. 3(3), 387–398 (1975)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Semple C., Steel M.: Phylogenetics. Mathematics and its Applications Series, vol. 22. Oxford University Press, NY (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steel, M.: My Favourite Conjecture. Preprint (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantinos Daskalakis
    • 1
  • Elchanan Mossel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sébastien Roch
    • 4
  1. 1.CSAILMITCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Statistics and Computer ScienceU.C. BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations