Combinatorial Scoring of Phylogenetic Networks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9797)

Abstract

Construction of phylogenetic trees and networks for extant species from their characters represents one of the key problems in phylogenomics. While solution to this problem is not always uniquely defined and there exist multiple methods for tree/network construction, it becomes important to measure how well the constructed networks capture the given character relationship across the species.

In the current study, we propose a novel method for measuring the specificity of a given phylogenetic network in terms of the total number of distributions of character states at the leaves that the network may impose. While for binary phylogenetic trees, this number has an exact formula and depends only on the number of leaves and character states but not on the tree topology, the situation is much more complicated for non-binary trees or networks. Nevertheless, we develop an algorithm for combinatorial enumeration of such distributions, which is applicable for arbitrary trees and networks under some reasonable assumptions.

References

  1. 1.
    Holland, B.R., Huber, K.T., Moulton, V., Lockhart, P.J.: Using consensus networks to visualize contradictory evidence for species phylogeny. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(7), 1459–1461 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huson, D.H., Scornavacca, C.: A survey of combinatorial methods for phylogenetic networks. Genome Biol. Evol. 3, 23–35 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulyantsev, V., Melnik, M.: Constructing parsimonious hybridization networks from multiple phylogenetic trees using a SAT-solver. In: Dediu, A.-H., Hernández-Quiroz, F., Martín-Vide, C., Rosenblueth, D.A. (eds.) AlCoB 2015. LNCS, vol. 9199, pp. 141–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu, Y.: An algorithm for constructing parsimonious hybridization networks with multiple phylogenetic trees. J. Comput. Biol. 20(10), 792–804 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steel, M.: The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9(1), 91–116 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelk, S.: A note on convex characters and Fibonacci numbers (2015). arXiv eprint: arXiv:1508.02598
  7. 7.
    Korneyenko, N.: Combinatorial algorithms on a class of graphs. Discret. Appl. Math. 54(23), 215–217 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandes, U., Cornelsen, S.: Phylogenetic graph models beyond trees. Discret. Appl. Math. 157(10), 2361–2369 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huson, D.H., Rupp, R., Berry, V., Gambette, P., Paul, C.: Computing galled networks from real data. Bioinformatics 25(12), i85–i93 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Semple, C., Steel, M.: Tree reconstruction from multi-state characters. Adv. Appl. Math. 28(2), 169–184 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The George Washington UniversityWashington, D.C.USA

Personalised recommendations