An Algorithmic View on Multi-Related-Segments: A Unifying Model for Approximate Common Interval

  • Xiao Yang
  • Florian Sikora
  • Guillaume Blin
  • Sylvie Hamel
  • Romeo Rizzi
  • Srinivas Aluru
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7287)


A set of genes that are proximately located on multiple chromosomes often implies their origin from the same ancestral genomic segment or their involvement in the same biological process. Among the numerous studies devoted to model and infer these gene sets, the recently introduced approximate common interval (ACI) models capture gene loss events in addition to the gene insertion, duplication and inversion events already incorporated by earlier models. However, the computational tractability of the corresponding problems remains open in most of the cases. In this contribution, we propose an algorithmic study of a unifying model for ACI, namely Multi-related-segments, and demonstrate that capturing gene losses induces intractability in many cases.


Gene Loss Ancestral Gene Inversion Event Input String Gene Insertion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amir, A., Gasieniec, L., Shalom, R.: Improved approximate common interval. Inf. Process. Lett. 103(4), 142–149 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergeron, A., Chauve, C., de Montgolfier, F., Raffinot, M.: Computing Common Intervals of K Permutations, with Applications to Modular Decomposition of Graphs. In: Brodal, G.S., Leonardi, S. (eds.) ESA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3669, pp. 779–790. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergeron, A., Chauve, C., Gingras, Y.: Bioinformatics Algorithms: Techniques and Applications, ch. 8, pp. 177–202. Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergeron, A., Corteel, S., Raffinot, M.: The Algorithmic of Gene Teams. In: Guigó, R., Gusfield, D. (eds.) WABI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2452, pp. 464–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergeron, A., Stoye, J.: On the similarity of sets of permutations and its applications to genome comparison. J. Comput. Biol. 13(7), 1340–1354 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blin, G., Chauve, C., Fertin, G., Rizzi, R., Vialette, S.: Comparing genomes with duplications: a computational complexity point of view. ACM TCBB 4(4), 523–534 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Böcker, S., Jahn, K., Mixtacki, J., Stoye, J.: Computation of median gene clusters. J. Comput. Biol. 16(8), 1085–1099 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Che, D., Li, G., Mao, F., Wu, H., Xu, Y.: Detecting uber-operons in prokaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 34(8), 2418–2427 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Didier, G., Schmidt, T., Stoye, J., Tsur, D.: Character sets of strings. JDA 5(2), 330–340 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Downey, R., Fellows, M.: Parameterized Complexity. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W.H. Freeman (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoberman, R., Durand, D.: The Incompatible Desiderata of Gene Cluster Properties. In: McLysaght, A., Huson, D.H. (eds.) RCG 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3678, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jahn, K.: Efficient computation of approximate gene clusters based on reference occurrences. Journal of Computational Biology 18(9), 1255–1274 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nadeau, J.H., Taylor, B.A.: Lengths of chromosomal segments conserved since divergence of man and mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 81(3), 814–818 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: Optimization, approximation and complexity classes. J. Comput. System Sci. 43, 425–440 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pasek, S., Bergeron, A., Risler, J.L., Louis, A., Ollivier, E., Raffinot, M.: Identification of genomic features using microsyntenies of domains: domain teams. Genome Res. 15(6), 867–874 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahmann, S., Klau, G.W.: Integer Linear Programs for Discovering Approximate Gene Clusters. In: Bücher, P., Moret, B.M.E. (eds.) WABI 2006. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 4175, pp. 298–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simillion, C., Vandepoele, K., de Peer, Y.V.: Recent developments in computational approaches for uncovering genomic homology. Bioessays 26(11), 1225–1235 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uno, T., Yagiura, M.: Fast algorithms to enumerate all common intervals of two permutations. Algorithmica 26(2), 290–309 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, X., Aluru, S.: A Unified Model for Multi-genome Synteny and Gene Cluster Inference. Technical report, Iowa State University (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, X., Aluru, S.: An improved model for gene cluster inference. In: BiCob 2010, pp. 190–195 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, X., Aluru, S.: Algorithms in Computational Molecular Biology: Techniques, Approaches and Applications, ch. 32, pp. 725–747. Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiao Yang
    • 1
  • Florian Sikora
    • 2
    • 5
  • Guillaume Blin
    • 2
  • Sylvie Hamel
    • 3
  • Romeo Rizzi
    • 4
  • Srinivas Aluru
    • 6
  1. 1.GSAPBroad Institute of MIT & HarvardUSA
  2. 2.LIGM, UMR 8049Université Paris-EstFrance
  3. 3.DIROUniversité de MontréalCanada
  4. 4.DIMIUniversità di UdineUdineItaly
  5. 5.Lehrstuhl für BioinformatikFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaGermany
  6. 6.DECEIowa State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations