Advertisement

The SCJ Small Parsimony Problem for Weighted Gene Adjacencies

  • Nina Luhmann
  • Annelyse Thévenin
  • Aïda Ouangraoua
  • Roland Wittler
  • Cedric Chauve
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9683)

Abstract

Reconstructing ancestral gene orders in a given phylogeny is a classical problem in comparative genomics. Most existing methods compare conserved features in extant genomes in the phylogeny to define potential ancestral gene adjacencies, and either try to reconstruct all ancestral genomes under a global evolutionary parsimony criterion, or, focusing on a single ancestral genome, use a scaffolding approach to select a subset of ancestral gene adjacencies. In this paper, we describe an exact algorithm for the small parsimony problem that combines both approaches. We consider that gene adjacencies at internal nodes of the species phylogeny are weighted, and we introduce an objective function defined as a convex combination of these weights and the evolutionary cost under the Single-Cut-or-Join (SCJ) model. We propose a Fixed-Parameter Tractable algorithm based on the Sankoff-Rousseau dynamic programming algorithm, that also allows to sample co-optimal solutions. An implementation is available at http://github.com/nluhmann/PhySca.

Notes

Acknowledgements

NL and RW are funded by the International DFG Research Training Group GRK 1906/1. CC is funded by NSERC grant RGPIN-249834.

References

  1. 1.
    Alekseyev, M., Pevzner, P.A.: Breakpoint graphs and ancestral genome reconstructions. Genome Res. 19, 943–957 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bérard, S., Gallien, C., et al.: Evolution of gene neighborhoods within reconciled phylogenies. Bioinformatics 28, 382–388 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertrand, D., Gagnon, Y., Blanchette, M., El-Mabrouk, N.: Reconstruction of ancestral genome subject to whole genome duplication, speciation, rearrangement and loss. In: Moulton, V., Singh, M. (eds.) WABI 2010. LNCS, vol. 6293, pp. 78–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bos, K.I., Schuenemann, V., et al.: A draft genome of yersinia pestis from victims of the black death. Nature 478, 506–510 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boža, V., Brejová, B., Vinař, T.: GAML: genome assembly by maximum likelihood. Algorithms Mol. Biol. 10, 18 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chauve, C., Ponty, Y., Zanetti, J.: Evolution of genes neighborhood within reconciled phylogenies: an ensemble approach. BMC Bioinform. 16(Suppl. 19), S6 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chauve, C., Tannier, E.: A methodological framework for the reconstruction of contiguous regions of ancestral genomes and its application to mammalian genomes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000234 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denoeud, F., Carretero-Paulet, L., et al.: The coffee genome provides insight into the convergent evolution of caffeine biosynthesis. Science 345, 125527 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feijǎo, P., Meidanis, J.: SCJ: a breakpoint-like distance that simplifies several rearrangement problems. IEEE/ACM TCBB 8, 1318–1329 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitch, W.: Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst. Biol. 20, 406–416 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kováč, J., Brejová, B., Vinař, T.: A practical algorithm for ancestral rearrangement reconstruction. In: Przytycka, T.M., Sagot, M.-F. (eds.) WABI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6833, pp. 163–174. springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luhmann, N., Chauve, C., Stoye, J., Wittler, R.: Scaffolding of ancient contigs and ancestral reconstruction in a phylogenetic framework. In: Campos, S. (ed.) BSB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8826, pp. 135–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luhmann, N., Thevenin, A., et al.: The SCJ small parsimony problem for weighted gene adjacencies (extended version) (2016). Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08819
  14. 14.
    Ma, J., Zhang, L., et al.: Reconstructing contiguous regions of an ancestral genome. Genome Res. 16, 1557–1565 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maňuch, J., Patterson, M., et al.: Linearization of ancestral multichromosomal genomes. BMC Bioinform. 13(Suppl. 19), S11 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miklós, I., Smith, H.: Sampling and counting genome rearrangement scenarios. BMC Bioinform. 16(Suppl 14), S6 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ming, R., Van Buren, R., et al.: The pineapple genome and the evolution of CAM photosynthesis. Nature Genet. 47, 1435 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neafsey, D.E., Waterhouse, R.M., et al.: Highly evolvable malaria vectors: the genome of 16 Anopheles mosquitoes. Science 347, 1258522 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rajaraman, A., Tannier, E., Chauve, C.: FPSAC: fast phylogenetic scaffolding of ancient contigs. Bioinformatics 29, 2987–2994 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sankoff, D., Rousseau, P.: Locating the vertices of a steiner tree in an arbitrary metric space. Math. Program. 9, 240–246 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tannier, E., Zheng, C., Sankoff, D.: Multichromosomal median and halving problems under different genomic distances. BMC Bioinform. 10(1), 120 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xu, A.W., Moret, B.M.E.: GASTS: parsimony scoring under rearrangements. In: Przytycka, T.M., Sagot, M.-F. (eds.) WABI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6833, pp. 351–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zheng, C., Sankoff, D.: On the pathgroups approach to rapid small phylogeny. BMC Bioinform. 12(Suppl. 1), S4 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Luhmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Annelyse Thévenin
    • 2
  • Aïda Ouangraoua
    • 3
  • Roland Wittler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cedric Chauve
    • 4
  1. 1.International Research Training Group “Computational Methods for the Analysis of the Diversity and Dynamics of Genomes”Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Genome Informatics, Faculty of Technology and Center for BiotechnologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations