Abstract
We survey and present new results and techniques for the supertree method matrix representation using flipping (MRF). The method resolves inconsistencies among the input trees by working with the matrix representations of the clusters exhibited by the input trees. All inconsistencies between the clusters in the matrix are resolved by a minimum number of flips, where each flip moves a taxon into or out of a cluster. The resulting clusters form an MRF supertree. We present an empirical study of MRF supertrees, where input trees for the study were selected out of a large tree set using a novel graph-theoretic sampling technique that maximizes the taxon support in the resulting supertrees. This study suggests, as do simulation studies, that MRF supertrees are relatively accurate when compared to matrix representation with parsimony supertrees, MinCutSupertrees, and modified MinCutSupertrees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adams, E. M., III. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Systematic Zoology 21:390–397.
Aho, A. V., Hopcroft, J. E., and Ullman, J. D. 1976. On finding lowest common ancestors in trees. SIAM Journal on Computing 1:115–132.
Aho, A. V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T. G., and Ullman, J. D. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM Journal on Computing 10:405–421.
Alexe, G., Alexe, S., Foldes, S., Hammer, P. L., and Simeone, B. 2000. Consensus Algorithms for the Generation of all Maximal Bicliques. Technical Report 2000–14, Rutgers University.
Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3–10.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Bryant, H. N. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Systematic Biology 47:497–508.
Böcker, S., Bryant, D., Dress, A. W. M., and Steel, M. A. 2000. Algorithmic aspects of tree amalgamation. Journal of Algorithms 37:522–537.
Bremer, K. 1990. Combinable component consensus. Cladistics 9:369–372.
Bremer K., Chase M. W., Stevens P. F., Anderberg A. A., Backlund A., Bremer B., Briggs B. G., Endress P. K., Fay M. F., Goldblatt P., Gustafsson M. H. G., Hoot S. B., Judd W. S., Källersjö M., Kellogg E. A., Kron K. A., Les D. H., Morton C. M., Nickrent D. L., Olmstead R. G., Price R. A., Quinn C. J., Rodman J. E., Rudall P. J., Savolainen V., Soltis D. E., Soltis P. S., Sytsma K. J., and Thulin M. 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanic Garden 85:531–553.
Brooks, D. R. 1981. Hennig ’s parasitological method: a proposed solution. Systematic Zoology 30:325–331.
Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. In M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts (eds), Bioconsensus, pp. 163–184. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
Chen, D., Diao, L., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2003. Flipping: a supertree construction method. In M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F. S. Roberts (eds), Bioconsensus, pp. 135–160. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2002a. Supertrees by Flipping. Technical Report TR02–01, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 226 Atanasoff Hall, Ames, IA 50011–1040, USA.
Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2002b. Supertrees by flipping. In Ibarra, O. H. and L. Zhang (eds), Computing and Combinatorics, 8th Annual International Conference, Cocoon 2002, Singapore, August 15–17, 2002, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2387:391–400. Springer, New York.
Diao, L., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2003. Consensus Properties of MRP Supertrees. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 226 Atanasoff Hall, Ames, IA 50011–1040, USA.
Downey, R. G. and Fellows, M. R. 1997. Parameterized Complexity. Springer, New York.
Doyle, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Systematic Botany 17:144–163.
Estabrook, G. F., Johnson, C., and McMorris, F. R. 1975. An idealized concept of the true cladistic character? Mathematical Biosciences 23:263–272.
Eulenstein, O., Chen, D., Burleigh, J. G., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. In press. Performance of flip-supertrees. Systematic Biology.
Farach, M., Przytycka, T., and Thorup, M. 1995. Agreement of many bounded degree evolutionary trees. Information Processing Letters 55:279–301.
Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., Desalle, R., and Hayahi, C. 2002. Resolution of a supertree / supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51:652–664.
Gatesy, J. and Springer, M. S. 2004. A critique of matrix representation with parsimony supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 369–388. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Gusfield, D. 1997. Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences: Computer Sciences and Computational Biology. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Henzinger, M. R., King, V., and Warnow, T. 1999. Constructing a tree from homeomorphic subtrees, with applications to computational evolutionary biology. Algorithmica 24:1–13.
Kearney, P., Li, M., Tsang, J., and Jiang, T. 1999. Recovering branches on the tree of life: an approximation algorithm. In R. E. Tarjan and T. Warnow (eds), Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Acm-Siam Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 537–546. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pa.
Magallón, S. and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm clades. Evolution 55:1762–1780.
Mathews, S. and Donoghue, M. J. 1999. The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 286:947–950.
Natanzon, A., Shamir, R., and Sharan, R. 2001. Complexity classification of some edge modification problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics 113:109–128.
Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. In R. Guigó and D. Gusfield (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics Wabi 2002, pp. 537–552, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Pe’Er, I., Shamir, R., and Sharan, R. 2000. Incomplete directed perfect phylogeny. In D. Sankoff (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching Cpm, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1848:143–153. Springer, New York.
Peeters, R. 2000. The maximum-edge biclique problem is NP-complete. Research Memorandum 789, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tilberg University.
Purvis, A. 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44:251–255.
Qiu, Y. L., Lee, J., Bernasconi-Quadroni, F., Soltis, D. E., Soltis, P. S., Zanis, M., Zimmer, E. A., Cihen, Z., Savolainen, V., and Chase, M. W. 1999. The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid, and nuclear genomes. Nature 402:404–407.
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.
Ross, H. A. and Rodrigo, A. G. 2004. An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 35–63. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Sanderson, M. J. 2003. r8s: inferring absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times in the absence of a molecular clock. Bioinformatics 19:301–302.
Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1995. Statistical Methods, 8th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Ia.
Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Chase, M. W., Mort, M. E., Albach, D. C., Zanis, M. J., Savolainen, V., Hahn, W. H., Hoot, S. B., Fay, M. F., Axtell, D. C., Swenson, S. M., Prince, L. M., Kress, W. J., Nixon, K. C., and Farris, J. S. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from a combined data set of 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of Linnean Society 133:381–461.
Sullivan, J. and Swofford, D. L. 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? Systematic Biology 50:723–729.
Swofford, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft (eds), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences, pp. 295–333. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Yannakakis, M. 1981. Computing the minimum fill-in is NP-complete. Siam Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 2:77–79.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burleigh, J.G., Eulenstein, O., Fernández-Baca, D., Sanderson, M.J. (2004). MRF Supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. (eds) Phylogenetic Supertrees. Computational Biology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive