Advertisement

Some notes on the nearest neighbour interchange distance

  • Ming LiEmail author
  • John TrompEmail author
  • Louxin ZhangEmail author
Session 10
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1090)

Abstract

We present some new results on a well known distance measure between evolutionary trees. The trees we consider are free 3-trees having n leaves labeled 0,..., n − 1 (representing species), and n − 2 internal nodes of degree 3. The distance between two trees is the minimum number of nearest neighbour interchange (NNI) operations required to transform one into the other. First, we improve an upper bound on the nni-distance between two arbitrary n-node trees from 4n log n [2] to n log n. Second, we present a counterexample disproving several theorems in [13]. Roughly speaking, finding an equal partition between two trees doesn't imply decomposability of the distance finding problem. Third, we present a polynomial-time approximation algorithm that, given two trees, finds a transformation between them of length O(log n) times their distance. We also present some results of computations we performed on small size trees.

Keywords

Internal Node Theoretical Biology Internal Edge Central Edge Intermediate Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. P. Boland, E. K. Brown and W. H. E. Day, Approximating minimum-length-sequence metrics: a cautionary note, Mathematical Social Sciences 4, 261–270, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karel Culik II and Derick Wood, A note on some tree similarity measures, Information Processing Letters 15, 39–42, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. H. E. Day, Properties of the Nearest Neighbour Interchange Metric for Tress of Small Size, Journal of Theoretical Biology 101, 275–288, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. P. Jarvis, J. K. Luedeman and D. R. Shier, Counterexamples in measuring the distance between binary trees, Mathematical Social Sciences 4, 271–274, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. P. Jarvis, J. K. Luedeman and D. R. Shier, Counterexamples in measuring the distance between binary trees, Journal of Theoretical Biology 100, 427–433, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Křivánek, Computing the Nearest Neighbour Interchange Metric for Unlabeled Binary Trees is NP-Complete, Journal of Classification 3, 55–60, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. King and T. Warnow, On Measuring the nni Distance Between Two Evolutionary Trees, DIMACS mini workshop on combinatorial structures in molecular biology, Rutgers University, Nov 4, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. W. Moore, M. Goodman and J. Barnabas, An iterative approach from the standpoint of the additive hypothesis to the dendrogram problem posed by molecular data sets, Journal of Theoretical Biology 38, 423–457, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis, Optimization, Approximation, and complexity classes, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 43, 425–440, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. F. Robinson, Comparison of Labeled Trees with Valency Three, Journal of Combinatorial Theory 11, 105–119, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Sleator, R. Tarjan, W. Thurston, Short encodings of evolving structures, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 5, 428–450, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M, S. Waterman and T. F. Smith, On the Similarity of Dendrograms, Journal of Theoretical Biology 73, 789–800, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.CWICanada

Personalised recommendations