Circular Networks from Distorted Metrics

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10812)

Abstract

Trees have long been used as a graphical representation of species relationships. However complex evolutionary events, such as genetic reassortments or hybrid speciations which occur commonly in viruses, bacteria and plants, do not fit into this elementary framework. Alternatively, various network representations have been developed. Circular networks are a natural generalization of leaf-labeled trees interpreted as split systems, that is, collections of bipartitions over leaf labels corresponding to current species. Although such networks do not explicitly model specific evolutionary events of interest, their straightforward visualization and fast reconstruction have made them a popular exploratory tool to detect network-like evolution in genetic datasets. Standard reconstruction methods for circular networks, such as Neighbor-Net, rely on an associated metric on the species set. Such a metric is first estimated from DNA sequences, which leads to a key difficulty: distantly related sequences produce statistically unreliable estimates. This is problematic for Neighbor-Net as it is based on the popular tree reconstruction method Neighbor-Joining, whose sensitivity to distance estimation errors is well established theoretically. In the tree case, more robust reconstruction methods have been developed using the notion of a distorted metric, which captures the dependence of the error in the distance through a radius of accuracy. Here we design the first circular network reconstruction method based on distorted metrics. Our method is computationally efficient. Moreover, the analysis of its radius of accuracy highlights the important role played by the maximum incompatibility, a measure of the extent to which the network differs from a tree.

Keywords

Phylogenetic networks Circular networks Finite metrics Split decomposition Distance-based reconstruction Distorted metrics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Work supported by NSF grants DMS-1007144, DMS-1149312 (CAREER), DMS-1614242 and CCF-1740707 (TRIPODS).

References

  1. 1.
    Felsenstein, J.: Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer, Sunderland (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steel, M.: Phylogeny—Discrete and Random Processes in Evolution. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 89. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Warnow, T.: Computational Phylogenetics: An Introduction to Designing Methods for Phylogeny Estimation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huson, D.H., Rupp, R., Scornavacca, C.: Phylogenetic Networks: Concepts Algorithms and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Semple, C., Steel, M.: Phylogenetics. Mathematics and its Applications Series, vol. 22. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bandelt, H.J., Dress, A.W.M.: A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set. Adv. Math. 92(1), 47–105 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakhleh, L., Morrison, D.: Phylogenetic networks. In: Kliman, R.M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, pp. 264–269. Academic Press, Oxford (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huson, D.H., Bryant, D.: Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(2), 254–267 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryant, D., Moulton, V.: Neighbor-Net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(2), 255–265 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erdös, P.L., Steel, M.A., Székely, L.A., Warnow, T.A.: A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (part 1). Random Struct. Algorithms 14(2), 153–184 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erdös, P.L., Steel, M.A., Székely, L.A., Warnow, T.A.: A few logs suffice to build (almost) all trees (part 2). Theor. Comput. Sci. 221, 77–118 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacey, M.R., Chang, J.T.: A signal-to-noise analysis of phylogeny estimation by neighbor-joining: insufficiency of polynomial length sequences. Math. Biosci. 199(2), 188–215 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    King, V., Zhang, L., Zhou, Y.: On the complexity of distance-based evolutionary tree reconstruction. In: 2003 Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 444–453. SIAM, Philadelphia (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mossel, E.: Distorted metrics on trees and phylogenetic forests. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Bio. Bioinform. 4(1), 108–116 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cryan, M., Goldberg, L.A., Goldberg, P.W.: Evolutionary trees can be learned in polynomial time. SIAM J. Comput. 31(2), 375–397 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mossel, E., Roch, S.: Learning nonsingular phylogenies and hidden Markov models. Ann. Appl. Probab. 16(2), 583–614 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daskalakis, C., Mossel, E., Roch, S.: Phylogenies without branch bounds: contracting the short, pruning the deep. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 25(2), 872–893 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gronau, I., Moran, S., Snir, S.: Fast and reliable reconstruction of phylogenetic trees with indistinguishable edges. Random Struct. Algorithms 40(3), 350–384 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huson, D.H., Nettles, S.M., Warnow, T.J.: Disk-covering, a fast-converging method for phylogenetic tree reconstruction. J. Comput. Biol. 6(3–4), 369–386 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roshan, U.W., Moret, B.M.E., Warnow, T., Williams, T.L.: Rec-I-DCM3: a fast algorithmic technique for reconstructing large phylogenetic trees. In: International Computational Systems Bioinformatics Conference, pp. 98–109. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buneman, P.: The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. In: Kendall, D.G., Tautu, P. (eds.) Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, pp. 387–395 (1971)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jukes, T.H., Cantor, C.R.: Evolution of protein molecules. In: Mammalian Protein Metabolism, pp. 21–132. Academic Press, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steel, M.: Recovering a tree from the leaf colourations it generates under a Markov model. Appl. Math. Lett. 7(2), 19–23 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bryant, D.: Extending tree models to split networks. In: Pachter, L., Sturmfels, B. (eds.) Algebraic Statistics for Computational Biology, pp. 297–310. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roch, S., Wang, K.C.: Circular networks from distorted metrics. Preprint (2017). arXiv:1707.05722

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations