Encyclopedia of Algorithms

Living Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Maximum Agreement Supertree

  • Jesper JanssonEmail author
  • Wing-Kin Sung
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27848-8_222-2

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

2005; Jansson, Ng, Sadakane, Sung

2007; Berry, Nicolas

2010; Guillemot, Berry

2011; Hoang, Sung

Problem Definition

A phylogenetic tree is a rooted, unordered tree whose leaves are distinctly labeled and whose internal nodes have degree at least two. By distinctly labeled, we mean that no two leaves in the tree have the same label. Let T be a phylogenetic tree with a leaf label set S. For any subset S′ of S, the topological restriction of T to S′ (denoted by T | S′) is the tree obtained from T by deleting all nodes which are not on any path from the root to a leaf in S′ along with their incident edges and then contracting every edge between a node having just one child and its child. See Fig. 1 for an illustration. For any phylogenetic tree T, denote its set of leaf labels by Λ(T).


Phylogenetic tree, Maximum agreement supertree, Rooted triplet, NP-hardness, Fixed-parameter tractability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



JJ was funded by the Hakubi Project at Kyoto University and KAKENHI grant number 26330014.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Akutsu T, Halldórsson MM (2000) On the approximation of largest common subtrees and largest common point sets. Theor Comput Sci 233(1–2):33–50CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry V, Nicolas F (2007) Maximum agreement and compatible supertrees. J Discret Algorithms 5(3):564–591MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL, Steel MA (2002) The (super)tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryant D (1997) Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees: theory and methods in phylogenetic analysis. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chor B, Hendy M, Penny D (2007) Analytic solutions for three taxon ML trees with variable rates across sites. Discret Appl Math 155(6–7):750–758MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farach M, Przytycka T, Thorup M (1995) On the agreement of many trees. Inf Process Lett 55(6):297–301MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ga̧sieniec L, Jansson J, Lingas A, Östlin A (1999) On the complexity of constructing evolutionary trees. J Comb Optim 3(2–3):183–197Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillemot S, Berry V (2010) Fixed-parameter tractability of the maximum agreement supertree problem. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 7(2):342–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hein J, Jiang T, Wang L, Zhang K (1996) On the complexity of comparing evolutionary trees. Discret Appl Math 71(1–3):153–169MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henzinger MR, King V, Warnow T (1999) Constructing a tree from homeomorphic subtrees, with applications to computational evolutionary biology. Algorithmica 24(1):1–13MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoang VT, Sung W-K (2011) Improved algorithms for maximum agreement and compatible supertrees. Algorithmica 59(2):195–214MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jansson J, Ng JHK, Sadakane K, Sung W-K (2005) Rooted maximum agreement supertrees. Algorithmica 43(4):293–307MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kao M-Y, Lam T-W, Sung W-K, Ting H-F (2001) An even faster and more unifying algorithm for comparing trees via unbalanced bipartite matchings. J Algorithms 40(2):212–233MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kearney P (2002) Phylogenetics and the quartet method. In: Current topics in computational molecular biology. MIT, Cambridge pp 111–133Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanderson MJ, Purvis A, Henze C (1998) Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. TRENDS Ecol Evol 13(3):105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Mathematical BioinformaticsInstitute for Chemical Research, Kyoto UniversityGokasho, Uji, KyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore