Literature DB >> 24559134

Exactly computing the parsimony scores on phylogenetic networks using dynamic programming.

Lavanya Kannan1, Ward C Wheeler.   

Abstract

Scoring a given phylogenetic network is the first step that is required in searching for the best evolutionary framework for a given dataset. Using the principle of maximum parsimony, we can score phylogenetic networks based on the minimum number of state changes across a subset of edges of the network for each character that are required for a given set of characters to realize the input states at the leaves of the networks. Two such subsets of edges of networks are interesting in light of studying evolutionary histories of datasets: (i) the set of all edges of the network, and (ii) the set of all edges of a spanning tree that minimizes the score. The problems of finding the parsimony scores under these two criteria define slightly different mathematical problems that are both NP-hard. In this article, we show that both problems, with scores generalized to adding substitution costs between states on the endpoints of the edges, can be solved exactly using dynamic programming. We show that our algorithms require O(m(p)k) storage at each vertex (per character), where k is the number of states the character can take, p is the number of reticulate vertices in the network, m = k for the problem with edge set (i), and m = 2 for the problem with edge set (ii). This establishes an O(nm(p)k(2)) algorithm for both the problems (n is the number of leaves in the network), which are extensions of Sankoff's algorithm for finding the parsimony scores for phylogenetic trees. We will discuss improvements in the complexities and show that for phylogenetic networks whose underlying undirected graphs have disjoint cycles, the storage at each vertex can be reduced to O(mk), thus making the algorithm polynomial for this class of networks. We will present some properties of the two approaches and guidance on choosing between the criteria, as well as traverse through the network space using either of the definitions. We show that our methodology provides an effective means to study a wide variety of datasets.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24559134      PMCID: PMC3962649          DOI: 10.1089/cmb.2013.0134

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


  5 in total

1.  Reconstructing phylogenetic networks using maximum parsimony.

Authors:  Luay Nakhleh; Guohua Jin; Fengmei Zhao; John Mellor-Crummey
Journal:  Proc IEEE Comput Syst Bioinform Conf       Date:  2005

2.  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

3.  Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution.

Authors:  C Tuffley; M Steel
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 1.758

4.  Hybridization in East African swarm-raiding army ants.

Authors:  Daniel Jc Kronauer; Marcell K Peters; Caspar Schöning; Jacobus J Boomsma
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 3.172

5.  Maximum Parsimony on Phylogenetic networks.

Authors:  Lavanya Kannan; Ward C Wheeler
Journal:  Algorithms Mol Biol       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 1.405

  5 in total
  2 in total

1.  Treewidth-based algorithms for the small parsimony problem on networks.

Authors:  Celine Scornavacca; Mathias Weller
Journal:  Algorithms Mol Biol       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 1.721

2.  Phylogenetic network analysis as a parsimony optimization problem.

Authors:  Ward C Wheeler
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 3.169

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.