Yun Deng1, David Fernández-Baca1. 1. Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Atanasoff Hall, Ames, IA USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Semi-labeled trees generalize ordinary phylogenetic trees, allowing internal nodes to be labeled by higher-order taxa. Taxonomies are examples of semi-labeled trees. Suppose we are given collection [Formula: see text] of semi-labeled trees over various subsets of a set of taxa. The ancestral compatibility problem asks whether there is a semi-labeled tree that respects the clusterings and the ancestor/descendant relationships implied by the trees in [Formula: see text]. The running time and space usage of the best previous algorithm for testing ancestral compatibility depend on the degrees of the nodes in the trees in [Formula: see text]. RESULTS: We give a algorithm for the ancestral compatibility problem that runs in [Formula: see text] time and uses [Formula: see text] space, where [Formula: see text] is the total number of nodes and edges in the trees in [Formula: see text]. CONCLUSIONS: Taxonomies enable researchers to expand greatly the taxonomic coverage of their phylogenetic analyses. The running time of our method does not depend on the degrees of the nodes in the trees in [Formula: see text]. This characteristic is important when taxonomies-which can have nodes of high degree-are used.
BACKGROUND: Semi-labeled trees generalize ordinary phylogenetic trees, allowing internal nodes to be labeled by higher-order taxa. Taxonomies are examples of semi-labeled trees. Suppose we are given collection [Formula: see text] of semi-labeled trees over various subsets of a set of taxa. The ancestral compatibility problem asks whether there is a semi-labeled tree that respects the clusterings and the ancestor/descendant relationships implied by the trees in [Formula: see text]. The running time and space usage of the best previous algorithm for testing ancestral compatibility depend on the degrees of the nodes in the trees in [Formula: see text]. RESULTS: We give a algorithm for the ancestral compatibility problem that runs in [Formula: see text] time and uses [Formula: see text] space, where [Formula: see text] is the total number of nodes and edges in the trees in [Formula: see text]. CONCLUSIONS: Taxonomies enable researchers to expand greatly the taxonomic coverage of their phylogenetic analyses. The running time of our method does not depend on the degrees of the nodes in the trees in [Formula: see text]. This characteristic is important when taxonomies-which can have nodes of high degree-are used.
Authors: Cody E Hinchliff; Stephen A Smith; James F Allman; J Gordon Burleigh; Ruchi Chaudhary; Lyndon M Coghill; Keith A Crandall; Jiabin Deng; Bryan T Drew; Romina Gazis; Karl Gude; David S Hibbett; Laura A Katz; H Dail Laughinghouse; Emily Jane McTavish; Peter E Midford; Christopher L Owen; Richard H Ree; Jonathan A Rees; Douglas E Soltis; Tiffani Williams; Karen A Cranston Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Olaf R P Bininda-Emonds; Marcel Cardillo; Kate E Jones; Ross D E MacPhee; Robin M D Beck; Richard Grenyer; Samantha A Price; Rutger A Vos; John L Gittleman; Andy Purvis Journal: Nature Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Eric W Sayers; Tanya Barrett; Dennis A Benson; Stephen H Bryant; Kathi Canese; Vyacheslav Chetvernin; Deanna M Church; Michael DiCuccio; Ron Edgar; Scott Federhen; Michael Feolo; Lewis Y Geer; Wolfgang Helmberg; Yuri Kapustin; David Landsman; David J Lipman; Thomas L Madden; Donna R Maglott; Vadim Miller; Ilene Mizrachi; James Ostell; Kim D Pruitt; Gregory D Schuler; Edwin Sequeira; Stephen T Sherry; Martin Shumway; Karl Sirotkin; Alexandre Souvorov; Grigory Starchenko; Tatiana A Tatusova; Lukas Wagner; Eugene Yaschenko; Jian Ye Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 16.971