Structural Properties and Tractability Results for Linear Synteny
The syntenic distance between two species is the minimum number of fusions, fissions, and translocations required to transform one genome into the other. The linear syntenic distance, a restricted form of this model, has been shown to be close to the syntenic distance. Both models are computationally difficult to compute and have resisted efficient approximation algorithms with non-trivial performance guarantees. In this paper, we prove that many useful properties of syntenic distance carry over to linear syntenic distance. We also give a reduction from the general linear synteny problem to the question of whether a given instance can be solved using the maximum possible number of translocations. Our main contribution is an algorithm exactly computing linear syntenic distance in nested instances of the problem. This is the first polynomial time algorithm exactly solving linear synteny for a non-trivial class of instances. It is based on a novel connection between the syntenic distance and a scheduling problem that has been studied in the operations research literature.
KeywordsSchedule Problem Move Sequence Restricted Form Tractability Result Initial Fusion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.H. M. Abdel-Wahab and T. Kameda. Scheduling to minimize maximum cumulative costs subject to series-parallel precedence constraints. Operations Research, 26(1):141–158, January/February 1978.Google Scholar
- 2.Vineet Bafna and Pavel A. Pevzner. Genome rearrangements and sorting by reversals. SIAM Journal on Computing, 25(2):272–289, April 1996. A previous version appeared in FOCS’93.Google Scholar
- 4.Piotr Berman and Marek Karpinski. On some tighter inapproximability results. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 29, 1998.Google Scholar
- 5.Alberto Caprara. Sorting by reversals is difficult. In 1st Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, pages 75–83, 1997.Google Scholar
- 6.D. A. Christie. A 3/2-approximation algorithm for sorting by reversals. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 244–252, 1998.Google Scholar
- 7.Bhaskar DasGupta, Tao Jiang, Sampath Kannan, Ming Li, and Elizabeth Sweedyk. On the complexity and approximation of syntenic distance. Discrete Applied Mathematics (special issue on computational biology), 88(1–3):59–82, November 1998. A previous version appeared in RECOMB’97.Google Scholar
- 8.Jason Ehrlich, David Sankoff, and Joseph H. Nadeau. Synteny conservation and chromosome rearrangements during mammalian evolution. Genetics, 147(1):289–296, September 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.Vincent Ferretti, Joseph H. Nadeau, and David Sankoff. Original synteny. In 7th Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching, pages 159–167, 1996.Google Scholar
- 11.David Liben-Nowell. On the structure of syntenic distance. In 10th Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching, pages 43–56, 1999.Google Scholar
- 12.C. L. Monma and J. B. Sidney. A general algorithm for optimal job sequencing with series-parallel precedence constraints. Technical Report 347, School of Operations Research, Cornell University, 1977.Google Scholar
- 13.David Sankoff and Joseph H. Nadeau. Conserved synteny as a measure of genomic distance. Discrete Applied Mathematics (special issue on computational biology), 71(1–3):247–257, December 1996.Google Scholar