Advertisement

An Experimental Analysis of Robinson-Foulds Distance Matrix Algorithms

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5193)

Abstract

In this paper, we study two fast algorithms—HashRF and PGM-Hashed—for computing the Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance matrix between a collection of evolutionary trees. The RF distance matrix represents a tremendous data-mining opportunity for helping biologists understand the evolutionary relationships depicted among their trees. The novelty of our work results from using a variety of different architecture- and implementation-independent measures (i.e., percentage of bipartition sharing, number of bipartition comparisons, and memory usage) in addition to CPU time to explore practical algorithmic performance. Overall, our study concludes that HashRF performs better across the various performance measures than its competitor, PGM-Hashed. Thus, the HashRF algorithm provides scientists with a fast approach for understanding the evolutionary relationships among a set of trees.

Keywords

phylogenetic trees RF distance performance analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hillis, D.M., Heath, T.A., John, K.S.: Analysis and visualization of tree space. Syst. Biol. 54(3), 471–482 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sul, S.J., Williams, T.L.: A randomized algorithm for comparing sets of phylogenetic trees. In: Proc. Fifth Asia Pacific Bioinformatics Conference (APBC 2007), pp. 121–130 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sul, S.J., Williams, T.L.: HashRF: a fast algorithm for computing the Robinson-Foulds distance matrix. Technical Report TR-CS-2008-6-1, Department of Computer Science, Texas A& M University (2008), http://www.cs.tamu.edu/academics/tr/tamu-cs-tr-2008-6-1
  4. 4.
    Pattengale, N., Gottlieb, E., Moret, B.: Efficiently computing the Robinson-Foulds metric. Journal of Computational Biology 14(6), 724–735 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson, D.F., Foulds, L.R.: Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Mathematical Biosciences 53, 131–147 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Day, W.H.E.: Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. Journal Of Classification 2, 7–28 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amenta, N., Clarke, F., John, K.S.: A linear-time majority tree algorithm. In: Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics. LNCS, vol. 2168, pp. 216–227 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bortolussi, N., Durand, E., Blum, M., Franois, O.: apTreeshape: statistical analysis of phylogenetic tree shape. Bioinformatics 22(3), 363–364 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTexas A&M University

Personalised recommendations