Branch-and-Bound Approach for Parsimonious Inference of a Species Tree from a Set of Gene Family Trees

  • Jean-Philippe DoyonEmail author
  • Cedric Chauve
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 696)


We describe a Branch-and-Bound algorithm for computing a parsimonious species tree, given a set of gene family trees. Our algorithm can consider three cost measures: number of gene duplications, number of gene losses, and both combined. Moreover, to cope with intrinsic limitations of Branch-and-Bound algorithms for species trees inference regarding the number of taxa that can be considered, our algorithm can naturally take into account predefined relationships between sets of taxa. We test our algorithm on a dataset of eukaryotic gene families spanning 29 taxa.


Comparative genomics Evolution and phylogenetics 


  1. 1.
    M.S. Bansal, O. Eulenstein, and A. Wehe. The gene-duplication problem: Near-linear time algorithms for nni-based local searches. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 6(2):221–231, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Chauve, J.P. Doyon, and N. El-Mabrouk. Gene family evolution by duplication, speciation and loss. Journal of Computational Biology, 15(8):1043–1062, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Chauve and N. El-Mabrouk. New perspectives on gene family evolution: Losses in reconciliation and a link with supertrees. In Research in Computational Molecular Biology, 13th Annual International Conference, RECOMB 2009, Tucson, AZ, USA, May 18-21, 2009. Proceedings, volume 5541 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 46–58. Springer, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.P. Doyon and C. Chauve. Branch-and-bound approach for parsimonious inference of a species tree from a set of gene family trees. Technical report, LIRMM, 2010. URL
  5. 5.
    W.M. Fitch. Homology a personal view on some of the problems. Trends in Genetics, 16:227–231, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Goodman, J. Czelusniak, G.W. Moore, R.A. Herrera, and G. Matsuda. Fitting the gene lineage into its species lineage, a parsimony strategy illustrated by cladograms constructed from globin sequences. Systematic Zoology, 28:132–163, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.T. Hallett and J. Lagergren. New algorithms for the duplication-loss model. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, RECOMB 2000, April 8-11, 2000, Tokyo, Japan, pages 138–146. ACM Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Ma, M. Li, and L. Zhang. From gene trees to species trees. SIAM Journal on Computing, 30(3):729–752, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.D.M. Page. GeneTree: Comparing gene and species phylogenies using reconciled trees. Bioinformatics, 14(9):819–820, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.F. Robinson and L.R. Foulds. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Mathematical Biosciences, 53:131–147, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Sanderson and M. Mcmahon. Inferring angiosperm phylogeny from EST data with widespread gene duplication. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7:S3, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Wehe, M.S. Bansal, J.G Burleigh, and O. Eulenstein. DupTree: A program for large-scale phylogenetic analyses using gene tree parsimony. Bioinformatics, 24(13):1540–1541, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Zhang. On a Mirkin-Muchnik-Smith conjecture for comparing molecular phylogenies. Journal of Computational Biology, 4(2):177–187, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIRMM, Université Montpellier 2 and CNRSMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations