Literature DB >> 18047426

A decomposition theory for phylogenetic networks and incompatible characters.

Dan Gusfield1, Vikas Bansal, Vineet Bafna, Yun S Song.   

Abstract

Phylogenetic networks are models of evolution that go beyond trees, incorporating non-tree-like biological events such as recombination (or more generally reticulation), which occur either in a single species (meiotic recombination) or between species (reticulation due to lateral gene transfer and hybrid speciation). The central algorithmic problems are to reconstruct a plausible history of mutations and non-tree-like events, or to determine the minimum number of such events needed to derive a given set of binary sequences, allowing one mutation per site. Meiotic recombination, reticulation and recurrent mutation can cause conflict or incompatibility between pairs of sites (or characters) of the input. Previously, we used "conflict graphs" and "incompatibility graphs" to compute lower bounds on the minimum number of recombination nodes needed, and to efficiently solve constrained cases of the minimization problem. Those results exposed the structural and algorithmic importance of the non-trivial connected components of those two graphs. In this paper, we more fully develop the structural importance of non-trivial connected components of the incompatibility and conflict graphs, proving a general decomposition theorem (Gusfield and Bansal, 2005) for phylogenetic networks. The decomposition theorem depends only on the incompatibilities in the input sequences, and hence applies to many types of phylogenetic networks, and to any biological phenomena that causes pairwise incompatibilities. More generally, the proof of the decomposition theorem exposes a maximal embedded tree structure that exists in the network when the sequences cannot be derived on a perfect phylogenetic tree. This extends the theory of perfect phylogeny in a natural and important way. The proof is constructive and leads to a polynomial-time algorithm to find the unique underlying maximal tree structure. We next examine and fully solve the major open question from Gusfield and Bansal (2005): Is it true that for every input there must be a fully decomposed phylogenetic network that minimizes the number of recombination nodes used, over all phylogenetic networks for the input. We previously conjectured that the answer is yes. In this paper, we show that the answer in is no, both for the case that only single-crossover recombination is allowed, and also for the case that unbounded multiple-crossover recombination is allowed. The latter case also resolves a conjecture recently stated in (Huson and Klopper, 2007) in the context of reticulation networks. Although the conjecture from Gusfield and Bansal (2005) is disproved in general, we show that the answer to the conjecture is yes in several natural special cases, and establish necessary combinatorial structure that counterexamples to the conjecture must possess. We also show that counterexamples to the conjecture are rare (for the case of single-crossover recombination) in simulated data.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18047426      PMCID: PMC2581772          DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2006.0137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Biol        ISSN: 1066-5277            Impact factor:   1.479


  25 in total

1.  Intraspecific gene genealogies: trees grafting into networks.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  On the minimum number of recombination events in the evolutionary history of DNA sequences.

Authors:  Yun S Song; Jotun Hein
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 2.259

Review 3.  Networks in phylogenetic analysis: new tools for population biology.

Authors:  David A Morrison
Journal:  Int J Parasitol       Date:  2005-04-30       Impact factor: 3.981

4.  Efficient computation of close lower and upper bounds on the minimum number of recombinations in biological sequence evolution.

Authors:  Yun S Song; Yufeng Wu; Dan Gusfield
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Inference about recombination from haplotype data: lower bounds and recombination hotspots.

Authors:  Vineet Bafna; Vikas Bansal
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.479

6.  Phylogenetic networks: modeling, reconstructibility, and accuracy.

Authors:  Bernard M E Moret; Luay Nakhleh; Tandy Warnow; C Randal Linder; Anna Tholse; Anneke Padolina; Jerry Sun; Ruth Timme
Journal:  IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  A concise necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a galled-tree.

Authors:  Yun S Song
Journal:  IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform       Date:  2006 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Reconstructing evolution of sequences subject to recombination using parsimony.

Authors:  J Hein
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.144

9.  Ancestral inference from samples of DNA sequences with recombination.

Authors:  R C Griffiths; P Marjoram
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.479

10.  Statistical properties of the number of recombination events in the history of a sample of DNA sequences.

Authors:  R R Hudson; N L Kaplan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.562

View more
  10 in total

1.  Mosaic graphs and comparative genomics in phage communities.

Authors:  Mahdi Belcaid; Anne Bergeron; Guylaine Poisson
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.479

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

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

3.  Identifying Species Network Features from Gene Tree Quartets Under the Coalescent Model.

Authors:  Hector Baños
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 1.758

4.  Phylogenetic networks do not need to be complex: using fewer reticulations to represent conflicting clusters.

Authors:  Leo van Iersel; Steven Kelk; Regula Rupp; Daniel Huson
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Computing galled networks from real data.

Authors:  Daniel H Huson; Regula Rupp; Vincent Berry; Philippe Gambette; Christophe Paul
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  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

7.  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.  Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things.

Authors:  Eric Bapteste; Maureen A O'Malley; Robert G Beiko; Marc Ereshefsky; J Peter Gogarten; Laura Franklin-Hall; François-Joseph Lapointe; John Dupré; Tal Dagan; Yan Boucher; William Martin
Journal:  Biol Direct       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 4.540

9.  Phylogenetic Trees and Networks Reduce to Phylogenies on Binary States: Does It Furnish an Explanation to the Robustness of Phylogenetic Trees against Lateral Transfers.

Authors:  Marc Thuillard; Didier Fraix-Burnet
Journal:  Evol Bioinform Online       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 1.625

10.  Frin: An Efficient Method for Representing Genome Evolutionary History.

Authors:  Yan Hong; Juan Wang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 4.599

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.