Phylogenetic Supertrees pp 151-171

Part of the Computational Biology book series (COBO, volume 4)

| Cite as

Supertree Algorithms for Nested Taxa

  • Philip Daniel
  • Charles Semple

Abstract

Most supertree algorithms combine collections of rooted phylogenetic trees with overlapping leaf sets into a single rooted phylogenetic tree. It is implicit in all these algorithms that the leaves of the rooted phylogenetic trees in the input collection, as a whole, represent non-nested taxa. Thus, for example, the “domestic dog” and “mammal” cannot be represented by two distinct leaves in such a collection because the former is nested inside the latter. In practice, however, one often wants to combine rooted trees in which taxa are nested. In other words, to combine rooted trees in which the leaves as well as some of the interior vertices are labeled. These interior labels represent taxa at a level higher than that of their descendants (e.g., families versus genera, or genera versus species). Moreover, it could happen that a leaf of one of the input trees represents a taxon that is represented by an interior label of another tree. In this chapter, we describe two supertree algorithms for combining rooted trees in which the leaves as well as some of the interior vertices are labeled. Called “rooted semi-labeled trees”, these trees are more general than rooted phylogenetic trees in that not only are their leaves labeled, but some of their interior vertices might be as well. Both algorithms are polynomial-time in the size of the input and are motivated by a problem posed by Page in an earlier chapter called “Taxonomy, Supertrees, and the Tree of Life”.

Keywords

Build interior labels leaf labels nested taxa taxonomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aho, A. V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T. G., and Ullman, J. D. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. Siam Journal on Computing 10:405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant, D., Semple, C., and Steel, M. 2004. Supertree methods for ancestral divergence dates and other applications. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 129–150. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Daniel, P. 2004. Supertree Methods, Some New Approaches. M.Sc. thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
  4. Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. In R. Guigó and D. Gusfield (eds), Algorithms in Bioinformatics, Second International Workshop, Wabi 2002, Rome, Italy, September 17–21, 2002, Proceedings, pp. 537–552. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Page, R. D. M. 2004. Taxonomy, supertrees, and the Tree of Life. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 247–265. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Daniel
  • Charles Semple

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations