Literature DB >> 16452812

Efficient reconstruction of phylogenetic networks with constrained recombination.

Dan Gusfield1, Satish Eddhu, Charles Langley.   

Abstract

A phylogenetic network is a generalization of a phylogenetic tree, allowing structural properties that are not tree-like. With the growth of genomic data, much of which does not fit ideal tree models, there is greater need to understand the algorithmics and combinatorics of phylogenetic networks [10, 11]. However, to date, very little has been published on this, with the notable exception of the paper by Wang et al.[12]. Other related papers include [4, 5, 7] We consider the problem introduced in [12], of determining whether the sequences can be derived on a phylogenetic network where the recombination cycles are node disjoint. In this paper, we call such a phylogenetic network a "galled-tree". By more deeply analysing the combinatorial constraints on cycle-disjoint phylogenetic networks, we obtain an efficient algorithm that is guaranteed to be both a necessary and sufficient test for the existence of a galled-tree for the data. If there is a galled-tree, the algorithm constructs one and obtains an implicit representation of all the galled trees for the data, and can create these in linear time for each one. We also note two additional results related to galled trees: first, any set of sequences that can be derived on a galled tree can be derived on a true tree (without recombination cycles), where at most one back mutation is allowed per site; second, the site compatibility problem (which is NP-hard in general) can be solved in linear time for any set of sequences that can be derived on a galled tree. The combinatorial constraints we develop apply (for the most part) to node-disjoint cycles in any phylogenetic network (not just galled-trees), and can be used for example to prove that a given site cannot be on a node-disjoint cycle in any phylogenetic network. Perhaps more important than the specific results about galled-trees, we introduce an approach that can be used to study recombination in phylogenetic networks that go beyond galled-trees.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 16452812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc IEEE Comput Soc Bioinform Conf        ISSN: 1555-3930


  8 in total

1.  Drawing explicit phylogenetic networks and their integration into SplitsTree.

Authors:  Tobias H Kloepper; Daniel H Huson
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 3.260

2.  On encodings of phylogenetic networks of bounded level.

Authors:  Philippe Gambette; Katharina T Huber
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 2.259

3.  A Survey of Methods for Constructing Rooted Phylogenetic Networks.

Authors:  Juan Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Inference of tumor phylogenies with improved somatic mutation discovery.

Authors:  Raheleh Salari; Syed Shayon Saleh; Dorna Kashef-Haghighi; David Khavari; Daniel E Newburger; Robert B West; Arend Sidow; Serafim Batzoglou
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.479

5.  A survey of combinatorial methods for phylogenetic networks.

Authors:  Daniel H Huson; Celine Scornavacca
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2010-11-15       Impact factor: 3.416

6.  The distribution of waiting distances in ancestral recombination graphs.

Authors:  Yun Deng; Yun S Song; Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 1.514

7.  Reconstructible phylogenetic networks: do not distinguish the indistinguishable.

Authors:  Fabio Pardi; Celine Scornavacca
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  In the light of deep coalescence: revisiting trees within networks.

Authors:  Jiafan Zhu; Yun Yu; Luay Nakhleh
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.