Advertisement

An Experimental Analysis of Consensus Tree Algorithms for Large-Scale Tree Collections

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5542)

Abstract

Consensus trees are a popular approach for summarizing the shared evolutionary relationships in a collection of trees. Many popular techniques such as Bayesian analyses produce results that can contain tens of thousands of trees to summarize. We develop a fast consensus algorithm called HashCS to construct large-scale consensus trees. We perform an extensive empirical study for comparing the performance of several consensus tree algorithms implemented in widely-used, phylogenetic software such as PAUP* and MrBayes. Our collections of biological and artificial trees range from 128 to 16,384 trees on 128 to 1,024 taxa. Experimental results show that our HashCS approach is up to 100 times faster than MrBayes and up to 9 times faster than PAUP*. Fast consensus algorithms such as HashCS can be used in a variety of ways, such as in real-time to detect whether a phylogenetic search has converged.

Keywords

Hash Function Consensus Tree Hash Table Majority Tree Input Tree 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Swofford, D.L.: PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), Sinauer Associates, Underland, Massachusetts, Version 4.0 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J.P.: Mrbayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19(12), 1572–1574 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felsenstein, J.: Phylogenetic inference package (PHYLIP), version 3.2. Cladistics 5, 164–166 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day, W.H.E.: Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. Journal Of Classification 2, 7–28 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis, L.A., Lewis, P.O.: Unearthing the molecular phylodiversity of desert soil green algae (chlorophyta). Syst. Bio. 54(6), 936–947 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soltis, D.E., Gitzendanner, M.A., Soltis, P.S.: A 567-taxon data set for angiosperms: The challenges posed by bayesian analyses of large data sets. Int. J. Plant Sci. 168(2), 137–157 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amenta, N., Clarke, F., John, K.S.: A linear-time majority tree algorithm. In: Benson, G., Page, R.D.M. (eds.) WABI 2003. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 2812, pp. 216–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyer, R.S., Hunt Jr., W.A., Nelesen, S.: A compressed format for collections of phylogenetic trees and improved consensus performance. In: Casadio, R., Myers, G. (eds.) WABI 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3692, pp. 353–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt Jr., W.A., Nelesen, S.M.: Phylogenetic trees in ACL2. In: Proc. 6th Int’l Conf. on ACL2 Theorem Prover and its Applications (ACL2 2006), pp. 99–102. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goloboff, P.: Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15, 415–428 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations